[3.pf.x] Unfavoured Classes

[Ashtagon]

I quite like Pathfinder's approach to favoured classes, in which you get a small bonus for each level you take in a favoured class.

However, I was wondering if there might be a subtle way of enforcing unfavoured classes. The must basic way is to ban the option (no dwarf mages). This is likely to chafe. The second most obvious way is with severe penalties (halve xp progression, or caster level at some reduced number, etc.) That is just an unsubtle way of saying the first.

How about something similar to the PF approach?


Each time you take a level in an unfavoured class, you must choose to either receive a -1 penalty on hp received, or a -1 penalty on skill points received.

In addition, no more than half your total class levels (round down) may be in unfavoured classes (or prestige classes that rely on features from unfavoured classes).

That second paragraph may need some verbage up to clarify corner cases (BAB, saves, etc). The intent is to stop a character with unfavoured class: wizard going wizard 3 then prestiging into a 10-level caster class that requires 2nd level wizard spells.

How reasonable is the basic concept though? Would this completely stop you from playing an unfavoured race/class combo?

[The Dark Fiddler]

My question is simple: why? Why do you want to discourage certain combinations of races and classes? All I can see it doing is restricting character choices, which is almost never a good idea.

[PersonMan]

Yeah, generally races are already encouraged to go towards specific classes (racial bonuses, favored class, etc.), so I don't think there's really any reason to punish the people who think 'hey, you know what? Dwarves are usually not wizards. A dwarf wizard would be interesting to play'.

[KillianHawkeye]

If you don't want somebody playing a dwarf wizard, just don't let them. Don't be passive aggressive about it. You'll have to come up with some really good reasons why dwarves don't have wizards and other races don't have other classes, though.

[FMArthur]

Favored Class is an awful concept to begin with. Trash it. It shouldn't matter even a little bit to a superspecial PC what most members of his or her race take class levels in. A hero should not be arbitrarily handicapped just because he's an elf raised among barbarians and fighters. Races have their natural strengths and weaknesses clearly laid out already that make them suited to particular classes in a way that isn't forced and arbitrary.

There's no reason to promote predictable stereotypes as being advantageous in your game.

[Ashtagon]

If you don't want somebody playing a dwarf wizard, just don't let them. Don't be passive aggressive about it. You'll have to come up with some really good reasons why dwarves don't have wizards and other races don't have other classes, though.


"The magical weave doesn't interact strongly enough with dwarven metaphysical existence for them to be able to directly manipulate magic."

"Elves, being fey creatures forsaken by the gods, cannot become clerics."

The above are perfectly fine justifications in a setting where the combo is banned.

If I wanted to make a severe restriction, I'd either ban the race/class combo, or make it NPC only. I'm looking for a playable, but mild, restriction on specific race/class combos, so that I have a more finely-graduated range of tools in my GM toolkit. That way, I could say such things as, for example:


"Due to their low centre of balance, halflings, dwarves, and gnomes are ill-suited to becoming monks, and treat the monk class as an unfavoured class." (let's pretend that the monk class is actually a viable choice in the first place. We all know that under RAW it's there for those who like to play on hard mode.)

With straight banning, the above concept can't be done. Or how about this:


In revenge for being banished to the Underdark, the high priestesses of the dark elves, sponsored by unholy demons that no right-thinking elf would turn to, summoned forth unholy energies that weakened the link between the aethyr and the elven race. All elves treat wizard and sorcerer as unfavoured classes."

This allows the traditional elf wizard trope to exist, but not as strongly. Again, impossible to create under the existing rules. Sure, the GM can simply make NPC elf wizards incredibly rare, but that simply makes the elf wizard PC that much more powerful in the setting, rather than give the campaign-specific result of that damaged link between elves and the arcane forces. Unless the party were actually travelling within elf lands, and interacting heavily with the elf community, they won't even notice. And the above (or mutatis mutandis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutatis_mutandis) for other race/class combos) is a really improbable set of circumstances for the average adventurer.

[sreservoir]

If I wanted to make a severe restriction, I'd either ban the race/class combo, or make it NPC only. I'm looking for a playable, but mild, restriction on specific race/class combos, so that I have a more finely-graduated range of tools in my GM toolkit. That way, I could say such things as, for example:

don't. making an option weaker than other, similar options is tantamount to banning it, because then anything which wants to follow that archetype will take the alternatives (unless the original option was ridiculously powerful anyway, in which case you have a rather different problem); and even if there aren't similar options to take, you've just stomped on a character concept. don't do it.


This allows the traditional elf wizard trope to exist, but not as strongly. Again, impossible to create under the existing rules. Sure, the GM can simply make NPC elf wizards incredibly rare, but that simply makes the elf wizard PC that much more powerful in the setting, rather than give the campaign-specific result of that damaged link between elves and the arcane forces. Unless the party were actually travelling within elf lands, and interacting heavily with the elf community, they won't even notice. And the above (or mutatis mutandis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutatis_mutandis) for other race/class combos) is a really improbable set of circumstances for the average adventurer.

the elf wizard pc is no more powerful than any other wizard pc.

[Ashtagon]

don't. making an option weaker than other, similar options is tantamount to banning it, because then anything which wants to follow that archetype will take the alternatives (unless the original option was ridiculously powerful anyway, in which case you have a rather different problem); and even if there aren't similar options to take, you've just stomped on a character concept. don't do it.


By that logic, RAW has banned the fighter, because a self-buffing cleric can do the fighter's job much more efficiently.


the elf wizard pc is no more powerful than any other wizard pc.

Conventional wisdom holds that elves make better wizards than almost any other race, thanks to their Int bonus, and under 3.5, definitely better than half-orcs with their Int penalty.

[137beth]

{Scrubbed}

@OP: An XP penalty is not the way to go. Skill points, on the other hand, are probably too mild to matter much. A penalty for hp might work, but unfortunately it matters more for some classes than for others. Of course, the classes it hurts the least are the high-hp classes which are usually underpowered anyways, so that might not be a problem.

[KillianHawkeye]

Conventional wisdom holds that elves make better wizards than almost any other race, thanks to their Int bonus, and under 3.5, definitely better than half-orcs with their Int penalty.

Elves don't have an Int bonus (except Gray Elves).

Anyway, and extra +2 or +4 to your casting stat is really a small bonus. Not exactly earth-shattering.

[137beth]

Elves don't have an Int bonus (except Gray Elves).

Not in 3.5, but the topic does include "pf" which suggests he may be referring to the PF elves, which do have an INT bonus.
On the other hand, even 3.5 elves make better wizards than half-orc:smallwink:


Anyway, and extra +2 or +4 to your casting stat is really a small bonus. Not exactly earth-shattering.
That's right, it is a mild bonus, similar to the desired mild penalty for unfavored classes. If it were a severe bonus/penalty, it would essentially ban other character options. That is why the bonus is small. And why it would be preferable for the penalty for unfavored classes to be small.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

By that logic, RAW has banned the fighter, because a self-buffing cleric can do the fighter's job much more efficiently.


In many games, the players have done that. I've only seen one fighter PC in the last three years and he was a special case that got a bunch of pseudo free monster levels and was pretty closely following Lockdown 20.

If you don't want them in game ban them, otherwise let the players be beautiful and unique snowflakes. If you make it mechanically bad then only a player with a huge hard-on for a concept will play it and they may well be miserable down the line because of it.

Also humans are generally considered to be better wizards than elves despite the fluff of amazing elven wizards. Elves have -2 Con generaly considered the number 2 stat of wizards, though this is somewhat balanced by a +2 to dexterity the number 3 stat. In 3.5 no stat mods and an extra feat puts humans in the lead and elves can only come even as a gray elf with the races of the wild racial substitution class.

Pathfinder gave Elves a big boost, but humans can still match their Int bonus without getting saddled with a con hit and the can use their free feat to either match the elf's natural bonus with spell penetration, or take something else. If the human does take SP he's still ahead because, the elf doesn't have SP for the purposes of qualifying for PrCs.

If you stick with the PHB elf than dwarf(silly yes), gnome and halfling are all superior mechanical choices for a wizard due to favorable stat adjustments; -2CHA/+2Con, -2STR/+2Con, -2 Str/+2Con and better miscellaneous bonuses +1 vs saves against spells, +1 DC of illusions plus some potentially useful spell likes, +1 all saves, yet the iconic figure of the elven wizard survived in the collective consciousness of gamers and continues to feature prominantly in games both as PCs and NPCs.

So let them be beautiful and unique snowflakes, but for the sake of your world's verisimilitude make sure they know they're such and that some people will hat them because they're beautiful.

[Bharg]

Short question: What exactly would be the point of this exercise? :smallconfused:

[eggs]

The lack of synergy bonuses is a penalty for classes that aren't favored.

The only difference between a lack of bonuses [which would have otherwise been available] and explicit penalties is the packaging.

If a DM pitched this rule in a game I were going to play, unless there were some big outside appeal (close friends, an otherwise stunning campaign pitch), I wouldn't plan on hanging around.

[NeoSeraphi]

Lore-wise, elves are generally supposed to be wizards, as they are one of the more magical races in the game. And if you ban elven clerics, that would raise the question of why when someone goes into the Underdark, all the drow are worshipping Lolth but not one of them has any sort of divine blessing from her.

I think your players will get annoyed if you set unfavored classes based on both lore and metagaming. Choose one or the other. If you want to restrict elf wizards because you feel that a +2 bonus to overcome spell resistance and a bonus to Intelligence makes an elf wizard too powerful, I could understand that. If you wanted to stop people from playing dwarven arcane casters because generally speaking, in most dwarven lore in the real world dwarves are not especially magical and are instead normally resistant to magic, I could understand that as well. But not both in the same game.

As for the unfavored class rules themselves, let's think for a moment.

Lower hit points are obviously an idea. Perhaps simply lower the hit dice down a step? (Dwarf wizards having d4 hit dice instead of d6, for instance). You could also restrict the class's Good saves to the Medium save progression (as seen in PF's prestige classes like Eldritch Knight).

The most important thing I have to say here is do not leave humans out of this. I know that humans have this whole "we can do anything" boon, but humans are already a strong and useful race, and if you don't give humans a few unfavored classes as well, your players will feel even less reason to not just take human for the customizable attribute bonus, free skill points, and free bonus feat.

Suggestions for Unfavored Classes based on Lore-
Dwarf- Sorcerer, wizard, magus
Elf- Barbarian, bard, monk
Half-Elf- Barbarian, cavalier, monk
Half-Orc- Wizard, alchemist, cleric
Human- Druid, oracle, ranger
Halfling- Fighter, paladin, barbarian
Gnome- Paladin, barbarian, cleric


Suggestions for Unfavored Classes based on Powerful Metagame Combinations-
Dwarf- Barbarian, magus
Elf- Wizard, alchemist, rogue
Half-Elf- Rogue, summoner
Half-Orc- Barbarian, paladin, cavalier
Human- Sorcerer, oracle, summoner
Halfling- Rogue, bard, summoner
Gnome- Wizard, sorcerer, summoner

[Kamai]

As a thought of a very mild penalty, can't you just say that certain races cannot benefit from any favored class bonus from certain classes (since RAW, anyone can take favored class wizard, some just have nicer bonuses than +1 hp or + 1 skill point). This is assuming your using PF+APG for favored class instead of 3.5 locked favored classes + PF bonuses.

Another thought could be to make a character that has a class unfavored pay a feat to be allowed to take those class levels. Not a terrible price in PF feat progression, but something that would be noticed.

[Techsmart]

I think someone mentioned this on a similar topic a while ago.
Nerfing classes is usually a bad way to handle issues, regardless of the reason. It is much easier to get a group to be okay with buffs to a class instead. The favored class bonus is an example of this. It encourages the players to do something with positive reinforcement (versus the negative reinforcement of nerfs). If you do give positive reinforcement, don't give it in something that is utterly visible the entire time. For example, XP buffs are bad, because it will become a visible issue when the wizard is level 3 and the fighter is level 2. On the other hand, a bonus to caster level, attack rolls or skill checks is not quite as visible, but can still reward a player for favored classes.
If a player wants to play a dwarf wizard for fluff reasons, don't penalize him. In fact, I would support this decision for the "for fluff reasons" part. Penalizing him for wanting to play one is going to leave the same mark as railroading, banning classes, etc. If he wants to do it, penalties won't stop him, but they will leave him a little frustrated.

Now that my speech is done, potential approaches.
Again, you don't want to penalize players who do unfavored classes. Instead, you could bump up the bonus for favored classes. Maybe, for example, double the bonus that PF inherently gives favored classes each level. Another alternative would be that you are treated as 1 caster level higher in your favored class for arcane classes, or you get +1 to attack rolls as long as a favored class is your primary class.
These are positive reinforcement ideas that encourage playing within the favored class system, but won't make the dwarf wizard feel like he was detrimental to the party for trying to meet fluff.

[Dr. Yes]

Easy way to do this without introducing a ton of needless complexity: ban your players of [x] race from taking [y] favored class. If you really want to make a "playable, but mild" restriction on those combinations, there you have it.

{Scrubbed}

[Ashtagon]

My ideal format would be to have a choice of 2-4 favoured classes per race, plus an optional number of unfavoured classes. For example:

* Human favoured class: At 1st level, pick any one of fighter, ranger, or rogue as your favoured class. Once chosen, this decision cannot be changed.
* Human unfavoured class: Bard, wizard, and sorcerer are unfavoured classes for humans.

* Elf favoured class: At 1st level, pick any one of fighter, ranger, or wizard as your favoured class. Once chosen, this decision cannot be changed.
* Elf unfavoured class: Barbarian and paladin are unfavoured classes for elves.

* Dwarf favoured class: At 1st level, pick any one of fighter or paladin as your favoured class. Once chosen, this decision cannot be changed.
* Dwarf unfavoured class: Bard, wizard, and sorcerer are unfavoured classes for dwarves.

(nb. above are combos picked out of a hat)

In other words, every race will see a choice of favoured class (but only one class can be the favoured class for any given individual), most classes being neither favoured nor unfavoured, and a small group of unfavoured classes.

[ThiagoMartell]

Favored Class is an awful concept to begin with. Trash it. It shouldn't matter even a little bit to a superspecial PC what most members of his or her race take class levels in. A hero should not be arbitrarily handicapped just because he's an elf raised among barbarians and fighters. Races have their natural strengths and weaknesses clearly laid out already that make them suited to particular classes in a way that isn't forced and arbitrary.

There's no reason to promote predictable stereotypes as being advantageous in your game.

You're not really familiar with Pathfinder's favored classes, right? :smallbiggrin:

[Kaje]

You're not really familiar with Pathfinder's favored classes, right? :smallbiggrin:

I think his point applies just as much to PF. Both are ways of promoting stereotypes.

[NeoSeraphi]

I think his point applies just as much to PF. Both are ways of promoting stereotypes.

It's not stereotypes. It's lore. If you say "Oh, hey, I want to play a dwarven wizard!", then sure, everyone might be like "Oh, hey, that's a neat idea." But the reason that an elf wizard would be more supported by the game is because you can't really name many examples of dwarven wizards from sources outside D&D. Meanwhile, elves have always had some kind of magical power all the way back to Tolkien, most notably Galadriel.

If you want to step outside of the box, that's cool. Gnome barbarians are awesome. But rewarding a player for sticking to the lore of his race is like a DM giving roleplaying XP. You might argue that roleplaying XP is unfair for a player who wants to play a strong, silent character, but the player who gives a grand speech about courage and valor to inspire the NPC army against the BBEG still deserves something for his trouble.

[ThiagoMartell]

I think his point applies just as much to PF. Both are ways of promoting stereotypes.

Pathfinder does not lock you into anything. You get a favored class bonus regardless of race, some have a few specific good ones. Yes, half-elves make better Summoners because they get a specific favored class bonus. Halflings make good Rogues because they get a bonus to Dex. What's the difference? You're not losing anything either way.
If promoting stereotypes (which I see as a simulationist exercise as your world making sense - elves have more wizards because they are good at it, not because they being good at it is an informed ability) is such a bad thing, the fault lies not only in favored class bonuses - it lies in racial traits, racial ability modifiers and race specific feats.

[NeoSeraphi]

Pathfinder does not lock you into anything. You get a favored class bonus regardless of race, some have a few specific good ones. Yes, half-elves make better Summoners because they get a specific favored class bonus. Halflings make good Rogues because they get a bonus to Dex. What's the difference? You're not losing anything either way.

If promoting stereotypes (which I see as a simulationist exercise as your world making sense - elves have more wizards because they are good at it, not because they being good at it is an informed ability) is such a bad thing, the fault lies not only in favored class bonuses - it lies in racial traits, racial ability modifiers and race specific feats.

Exactly. If we try and argue with favored class bonuses because they might make a certain race better at certain classes than others, it defeats the entire purpose of having a race. You might as well just do away with all racial traits and racial ability modifiers and have the race be purely aesthetic. Humans would be equal to elves who would be equal to dwarves who would be equal to half-elves. The only difference would be Size.

Dwarves make better barbarians than halflings, that is a simple fact that is never going to change, and favored class bonuses might reinforce this, but taking them away won't bridge the gap entirely.

[navar100]

I think his point applies just as much to PF. Both are ways of promoting stereotypes.

Perhaps, but Pathfinder's favored classes are a mechanical way to help promote not multiclassing. While Pathfinder is not outright banning it, it is clear their philosophy prefers characters staying in one class. There are prestige classes, but not many. Instead, they use archetypes to swap out class features for others that resemble 3E prestige classes in some cases or otherwise provide variety while staying in one class.

Some might argue this as a criticism against Pathfinder because they like multiclassing and see nothing wrong with it. It is this same argument as was just mentioned where the OP wants to ban certain race/class combos but doesn't want to admit it so requires unfavored class penalties to discourage them, thereby having the players ban them themselves.

[ThiagoMartell]

Perhaps, but Pathfinder's favored classes are a mechanical way to help promote not multiclassing. While Pathfinder is not outright banning it, it is clear their philosophy prefers characters staying in one class. There are prestige classes, but not many. Instead, they use archetypes to swap out class features for others that resemble 3E prestige classes in some cases or otherwise provide variety while staying in one class.

Some might argue this as a criticism against Pathfinder because they like multiclassing and see nothing wrong with it. It is this same argument as was just mentioned where the OP wants to ban certain race/class combos but doesn't want to admit it so requires unfavored class penalties to discourage them, thereby having the players ban them themselves.
Well, it gives you an incentive to stay in your class, but it doesn't make multiclassing or prestige classing any less powerful. Pathfinder wanted to make sure being a single class character wasn't outright a stupid decision and they did it pretty well, I believe.
Some of the best Pathfinder builds still use multiclassing, though.
The bonuses are not that good that you would say "oh, my multiclass character is gimped". The difference is smaller than +2 to Con or Int.

[Ashtagon]

Some have suggested something on the lines of favoured class gets double the usual favoured class bonus, 'neutral' classes get the favoured bonus only once per level, and unfavoured classes don;t get any such bonus.

This is a bad idea.

It messes with the overall balance levels. While characters would still remain balanced against each other, they would be overpowered compared to the monsters they are likely to meet. The game is balanced (in as much as anything in d20 can be called balanced) against the assumption that players build characters near the upper end of optimisation. If you systematically raise that upper end, they will end up too powerful.

[137beth]

Also humans are generally considered to be better wizards than elves despite the fluff of amazing elven wizards. Elves have -2 Con generaly considered the number 2 stat of wizards, though this is somewhat balanced by a +2 to dexterity the number 3 stat. In 3.5 no stat mods and an extra feat puts humans in the lead and elves can only come even as a gray elf with the races of the wild racial substitution class.

Pathfinder gave Elves a big boost, but humans can still match their Int bonus without getting saddled with a con hit and the can use their free feat to either match the elf's natural bonus with spell penetration, or take something else. If the human does take SP he's still ahead because, the elf doesn't have SP for the purposes of qualifying for PrCs.

Hence, why unfavored classes are necessary. I honestly think the "least magical" race, humans, should have unfavored class for wizard and sorcerer.


I think someone mentioned this on a similar topic a while ago.
Nerfing classes is usually a bad way to handle issues, regardless of the reason. It is much easier to get a group to be okay with buffs to a class instead. The favored class bonus is an example of this. It encourages the players to do something with positive reinforcement (versus the negative reinforcement of nerfs). If you do give positive reinforcement, don't give it in something that is utterly visible the entire time. For example, XP buffs are bad, because it will become a visible issue when the wizard is level 3 and the fighter is level 2. On the other hand, a bonus to caster level, attack rolls or skill checks is not quite as visible, but can still reward a player for favored classes.
If a player wants to play a dwarf wizard for fluff reasons, don't penalize him. In fact, I would support this decision for the "for fluff reasons" part. Penalizing him for wanting to play one is going to leave the same mark as railroading, banning classes, etc. If he wants to do it, penalties won't stop him, but they will leave him a little frustrated.

Now that my speech is done, potential approaches.
Again, you don't want to penalize players who do unfavored classes. Instead, you could bump up the bonus for favored classes. Maybe, for example, double the bonus that PF inherently gives favored classes each level. Another alternative would be that you are treated as 1 caster level higher in your favored class for arcane classes, or you get +1 to attack rolls as long as a favored class is your primary class.
These are positive reinforcement ideas that encourage playing within the favored class system, but won't make the dwarf wizard feel like he was detrimental to the party for trying to meet fluff.
Once again, if you don't like it, don't use it, but telling other people they can't use ideas that you don't like won't get ya anywhere. And as you JUST SAID, nerfs and buffs are effectively equivalent. Players understand that too, and so unless your players are young children, they will be just as happy with being nerfed as with having everyone else buffed, so there's really no point to saying "No! you should never nerf anything!"


Some have suggested something on the lines of favoured class gets double the usual favoured class bonus, 'neutral' classes get the favoured bonus only once per level, and unfavoured classes don;t get any such bonus.

This is a bad idea.

It messes with the overall balance levels. While characters would still remain balanced against each other, they would be overpowered compared to the monsters they are likely to meet. The game is balanced (in as much as anything in d20 can be called balanced) against the assumption that players build characters near the upper end of optimisation. If you systematically raise that upper end, they will end up too powerful.
Player vs. monster power is not "balance", it is game difficulty. You'll probably notice that no two videogames every made have the same difficulty, and no two D&D campaigns have the same difficulty. If you make the player's more powerful, the game is a little bit easier, that doesn't make it the "wrong" difficulty. You can also just make the monsters more powerful, or send out higher CR monsters.

Of course, since the 3.5 characters are already powerful, making them more so might make things get out of hand. If you prefer lower power levels, you could replace favored class bonuses with lack-of-penalties: "neutral" classes get the penalty once, and unfavored classes get the penalty twice.

[ThiagoMartell]

Yeah, generally races are already encouraged to go towards specific classes (racial bonuses, favored class, etc.), so I don't think there's really any reason to punish the people who think 'hey, you know what? Dwarves are usually not wizards. A dwarf wizard would be interesting to play'.

You know what, forget everything everyone else said. Forget everything I said. PersonMan wins this thread.
PERFECT!

[ericgrau]

Limiting someone to half levels in a caster level class is almost the same as banning it. -1 skill point often has little impact. Everyone likes hp, so that's an option. Though I think limiting options is risky business in general, as options tend to lead to more fun.

[kabreras]

The unfavored thing is by the no synergy betwin race and class why add the insult to that ?
Let your players play what they damn want it is a damn game let them have fun.
As for humans beeing the less magical race, no humans are the most adaptable race.

[Ashtagon]

The unfavored thing is by the no synergy betwin race and class why add the insult to that ?
Let your players play what they damn want it is a damn game let them have fun.
As for humans beeing the less magical race, no humans are the most adaptable race.

That all depends on what campaign you are playing in. In one of my examples, I gave a campaign-specific reason why elves would have wizard as an unfavoured class; elven race abilities normally synergise extremely well with the wizard class. Clearly, this concept I'm making here is not all about reinforcing the existing tropes.

As for humans being the most adaptable race, again that is a campaign-specific situation. In GW's Warhammer setting, humans are the action hero, not the adaptable guy. Ditto for Tolkein's Middle Earth. In the default fantasy setting from GURPS, humans wear the politician hat. In Allansia (look it up) humans are again the action hero, with the number of human spell-casters featured (friendly or otherwise) typically being one or less per adventure.

If I want to make humans something other than the Mario in order to make it fit with established campaign settings, why shouldn't I. (Don't answer that; it's rhetorical.)

[Augmental]

Once again, if you don't like it, don't use it, but telling other people they can't use ideas that you don't like won't get ya anywhere. And as you JUST SAID, nerfs and buffs are effectively equivalent. Players understand that too, and so unless your players are young children, they will be just as happy with being nerfed as with having everyone else buffed, so there's really no point to saying "No! you should never nerf anything!"

If buffs and nerfs are effectively equivalent as you say, why not take the more positive option and use buffs so your players will be happier?

[QuidEst]

:smallconfused:
This would annoy me as a player. It's already a nuisance that humans are the only ones to list favored class alternatives for all the classes. Messing with things further would be a pain, and I'd be less excited at the start of the campaign.

If you must, then simply say, "Elves may not take Wizard as their favored class." At which point, I say, "Oh well, back to human it is. I missed you, bonus feat." If you add penalties on top of it, I'll might say, "Fine. I'm playing a half-orc Wizard then," or something equally strange that your rules don't discourage.

[kabreras]

Imo if the DM is chaotic stupid im allowed to play a chaotic stupid, even if i have to roll one every game.

Punishing players for a roleplay reason is stupid and a dwarf wizard is just that, a way to have some fun roleplay.

[Psyren]

Aren't adventurers (i.e. PCs) supposed to be very uncommon sorts of folk anyway? So why would a player wanting to be a Dwarven Wizard or an Elven Alchemist be an issue?

The settings themselves already enforce the stereotypes that e.g. Dwarves and Half-Orcs shy away from wizardry. This is upheld by the NPCs that inhabit those worlds. The PCs have the freedom to explore unconventional combinations because they are already going against the grain simply by saying "I want to be a murdering hobo for a living!"

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Limiting someone to half levels in a caster level class is almost the same as banning it. -1 skill point often has little impact. Everyone likes hp, so that's an option. Though I think limiting options is risky business in general, as options tend to lead to more fun.

On non-INT dependent classes, -1 skill point can be a pain. Add an intelligence penalty from race, and you're down to 2/level if you're lucky. Having 3.5's "fighter problem" is bad, do not make it worse.:smallyuk:

[Ashtagon]

I'm somewhat surprised at the number of posts in this threads that are there to tell me I'm being stupid or playing the game wrong. People, if you need to flame, you don't need to post it.

(back to the topic now, please?)

[Honest Tiefling]

Hrm. I'm a little different from the others in this thread, I guess. I sorta dislike the idea for punishing the characters for a particular concept, but I think I could work around certain restraints. But, my advice is to give more favored classes then just two! Allow as many options as is viable for your campaign. I would also avoid punishing the physical classes TOO much -- Yeah, physics don't work that way, but a 22 STR character is already probably breaking them.

I also advise splats. Maybe I have some strange form of splat-itis, but I love me some archetypes and prestige classes perhaps a little too much. I think some classes appeal much more if I get access to new tricks and fluff, like Menhir Savant.

Also depends on your party--Some like a particular race (*cough*) and want to play it. Some LIKE the standard characters, and some like to be oddballs. Ask your players what they like! Some might go along with this.

To encourage them, I really advise SELLING the campaign setting. Make it detailed, make it awesome. If I can get hooked on it, I'm more willing to make a standard character for it, then if I have to guess everything and have no idea what is going on.

However, in the end, you might be better off going with Pathfinder Design: Go with the stick, not the carrot. Instead of banning or punishing classes, perhaps give those those who obey the rules a bonus, such as an extra racial feature (From the Advanced Races guide) or a bonus feat, or even both HP and the skill point for their favored class. People tend to react better to that, methinks.

Or make the class POSSIBLE, but require some RP to overcome it? A elven cleric might be seen as a traitor and hunted down if they turn from the mystical fey energies to worship the gods. A dwarf wizard might be the first from their clan in 500 years, and there's not exactly a bunch of scrolls lying around. Require the PCs to make it a known goal to you as the DM that they wish to surmount the problem, and make it a quest to do so.

[ericgrau]

On non-INT dependent classes, -1 skill point can be a pain. Add an intelligence penalty from race, and you're down to 2/level if you're lucky. Having 3.5's "fighter problem" is bad, do not make it worse.:smallyuk:

It's more like an inconvenience than a real problem. Other party members can usually cover it. Some DMs impose skill tax where certain skill(s) are essential for the most basic functioning, but usually it's just one skill like spot (b/c they think you need special training to not be blind). You max out that one, forget the rest, and it becomes mostly a non-issue. The skillmonkey(s) does need it but he can still manage with 1 less.

[kabreras]

I'm somewhat surprised at the number of posts in this threads that are there to tell me I'm being stupid or playing the game wrong. People, if you need to flame, you don't need to post it.

(back to the topic now, please?)

Well if you dont want peoples to argue with you i dont get why you even post on a forum.
And you didnt come with 1 resonable reason about why we can support your choise just punishing players because they want to try something where they already get a malus in (as class have no synergy with race) you want to add an other malus because they dont choose what you want them to choose ?
Roll their characters for them while you are at it, no point asking them to build them so you have total control.

[Quietus]

However, in the end, you might be better off going with Pathfinder Design: Go with the stick, not the carrot. Instead of banning or punishing classes, perhaps give those those who obey the rules a bonus, such as an extra racial feature (From the Advanced Races guide) or a bonus feat, or even both HP and the skill point for their favored class. People tend to react better to that, methinks.

Think you have this backwards. Pathfinder is using the carrot - the reward - to pull you toward the option they want you to take. 3.5 used the stick, in the form of exp penalties for multiclassing as an example.

[Ashtagon]

Well if you dont want peoples to argue with you i dont get why you even post on a forum.
And you didnt come with 1 resonable reason about why we can support your choise just punishing players because they want to try something where they already get a malus in (as class have no synergy with race) you want to add an other malus because they dont choose what you want them to choose ?
Roll their characters for them while you are at it, no point asking them to build them so you have total control.

Because discussion is not the same as flaming.

[Psyren]

I made a point that hasn't yet been addressed - PCs/adventurers are by definition uncommon people. So while a Dwarven Wizard or a Gnome Paladin might be rarities in the world at large, restricting PCs from such combinations when they're already meant to be nonstandard sorts doesn't make sense to me.


Think you have this backwards. Pathfinder is using the carrot - the reward - to pull you toward the option they want you to take. 3.5 used the stick, in the form of exp penalties for multiclassing as an example.

3.5 had some carrots too, in the form of ACFs. The problem is that they pushed you to very specific playstyles. For instance, they encouraged the Elven focus on wizardry via the Elven Generalist ACF, but that does nothing for elves that actually wished to specialize. Or Changelings' talent for being Rogues was illustrated via the Changeling Rogue ACF, but Changeling Rogues that wanted to be more traditional (as opposed to social) didn't get many extra goodies out of the class relative to other races.

[Ashtagon]

Aren't adventurers (i.e. PCs) supposed to be very uncommon sorts of folk anyway? So why would a player wanting to be a Dwarven Wizard or an Elven Alchemist be an issue?

Some campaign settings outright ban certain combos. Neither Warhammer nor Mystara have space for dwarf (or halfling) arcane casters, for example. Some settings make necromancers and assassins NPC-only. Severe penalties aren't the answer here, since that just makes the character unplayabe to the point where the GM really should just ban the combo or make it NPC-only anyway.

Acknowledging earlier comments, I'm definitely dropping the idea of "no more than half your class levels in an unfavoured class".

Some character concepts don't make sense within the context of a campaign. Human from Karameikos might have monk as unfavoured, while for his cousin from Ochalea it won't be unfavoured.

In any case, I don't buy into the "PCs are exceptional" point of view. I prefer the "PCs are ordinary people in exceptional circumstances" point of view.


The settings themselves already enforce the stereotypes that e.g. Dwarves and Half-Orcs shy away from wizardry. This is upheld by the NPCs that inhabit those worlds. The PCs have the freedom to explore unconventional combinations because they are already going against the grain simply by saying "I want to be a murdering hobo for a living!"

I already addressed this second point. The average character doesn't interact enough with NPCs for the absence of a particular NPC race/class combo to be noticed unless it is an informed non-ability (ie. GM tells them upfront that there are no halfling monks, or whatever). Just counting core, there's 77 combos. Your average party over a single campaign (say, five levels) won't meet even half that many significant NPCs.

[Psyren]

Some campaign settings outright ban certain combos. Neither Warhammer nor Mystara have space for dwarf (or halfling) arcane casters, for example.

The question then is, are you in one of those settings? If so, the players will know what they're getting into. If not, they will arrive at your table only to feel hamstrung and cheated.



In any case, I don't buy into the "PCs are exceptional" point of view. I prefer the "PCs are ordinary people in exceptional circumstances" point of view.

Fair point, however - letting the PCs be unconventional does not necessarily oppose this mindset. An elven monk for instance may seem an oddity or curiosity to his peers, but on the world stage may be no more than average as far as monks go nonetheless. He would therefore not be "special" in the sense that he's particularly better or more skilled than others of his profession, thus leaving the stage clear for you to place him in peril.

The point is that adventurers do have one thing in common - some force drove them to leave their hometowns behind and take to the open road. Not fitting in is as good a driver as any, and a deal less clichéd than murdered parents, a murdered mentor or a village razed to the ground. An odd race-class combination is a great way of representing this concept mechanically and can even help roleplay by providing structure.



I already addressed this second point. The average character doesn't interact enough with NPCs for the absence of a particular NPC race/class combo to be noticed unless it is an informed non-ability (ie. GM tells them upfront that there are no halfling monks, or whatever). Just counting core, there's 77 combos. Your average party over a single campaign (say, five levels) won't meet even half that many significant NPCs.

You don't have to interact with every inhabitant of a world to recognize basic trends though. Elves are commonly associated with being Fighters, Rangers, Druids and Wizards - this is common knowledge to all but the most insular of a D&D world's inhabitants. Similarly, Dwarves are good at smithing armor, Gnomes are often Bards, Halflings are often Rogues, Half-Orcs are often Barbarians etc. And clerics/adepts come from all racial walks of life.

And just as there are common combinations, there are rare ones. Dwarven Wizards for instance, or Half-Orc Bards, would be unexpected in most D&D settings. Knowing that those combinations are weird doesn't require census data on all the others, just the sort of ear to the ground that anyone who's been living in that world would likely have developed by the time they reach adulthood.

[arcticintel]

To answer your questions from the first post, I don't know if I'd consider penalizing certain race/class combos reasonable. I'd honestly prefer outright banning in a game as opposed to penalties.
As far as whether or not it would be effective, i'd say it would be, unless a player is so deadset on a specific race/class that he doesn't care about the penalty.

IMO your best option would probably to brief your players on whatever changes you want to make to the stereotypes on fantasy races. If elves in your world are terrible at magic, they should probably know in advance anyway. As far as encouraging them not to play those races, rather than ban or penalize them, requiring your players to come up with a good justification that needs your approval would be a decent option.

If you're set on actually using the penalties, I'd say just look at what pathfinder does for favored classes, and then reverse that.

[Quietus]

3.5 had some carrots too, in the form of ACFs. The problem is that they pushed you to very specific playstyles. For instance, they encouraged the Elven focus on wizardry via the Elven Generalist ACF, but that does nothing for elves that actually wished to specialize. Or Changelings' talent for being Rogues was illustrated via the Changeling Rogue ACF, but Changeling Rogues that wanted to be more traditional (as opposed to social) didn't get many extra goodies out of the class relative to other races.

Yes, 3.5 got a lot better about things later in its life cycle. The designers, I feel, started to get a better feel for what worked well within their system and what didn't. But I think that using ACFs to encourage the fluff-standard of a race, and give a reason why elves are great wizards, or changelings are great infiltrators, isn't a bad thing. There's only so much content that can be created, and the only alternative to supporting tropes with ACFs would be to create ACFs for every class, for every race. There simply isn't enough room for that. I'm of the opinion that they handled these things exactly correctly.

[Dr. Yes]

If you have enough lead time on the campaign to let everyone know what their favored and unfavored classes are, another option would be to actually lay out the lore for what's more or less common in certain cultures, and what's flat-out impossible. That gives the players something more to work with from an RP standpoint. If your goal is to encourage builds that aren't standard in fantasy at large, you might additionally look at reworking what races get bonuses to which stats. That'll go a long way to reinforcing your setting-specific archetypes, and if you do it well people won't see it as being punitive.


Because discussion is not the same as flaming.

Couldn't have said it better myself. If you're getting a preponderance of negative feedback, it's not because everyone is mean and hates you personally; it's because that is the kind of reaction that your idea provokes.

[Honest Tiefling]

Think you have this backwards. Pathfinder is using the carrot - the reward - to pull you toward the option they want you to take. 3.5 used the stick, in the form of exp penalties for multiclassing as an example.

Er, yes I do. Use the carrot, not the stick. Do as I mean, not as the dyslexia makes me say.

[Sarone]

I quite like Pathfinder's approach to favoured classes, in which you get a small bonus for each level you take in a favoured class.

However, I was wondering if there might be a subtle way of enforcing unfavoured classes. The must basic way is to ban the option (no dwarf mages). This is likely to chafe. The second most obvious way is with severe penalties (halve xp progression, or caster level at some reduced number, etc.) That is just an unsubtle way of saying the first.

How about something similar to the PF approach?


Each time you take a level in an unfavoured class, you must choose to either receive a -1 penalty on hp received, or a -1 penalty on skill points received.

In addition, no more than half your total class levels (round down) may be in unfavoured classes (or prestige classes that rely on features from unfavoured classes).

That second paragraph may need some verbage up to clarify corner cases (BAB, saves, etc). The intent is to stop a character with unfavoured class: wizard going wizard 3 then prestiging into a 10-level caster class that requires 2nd level wizard spells.

How reasonable is the basic concept though? Would this completely stop you from playing an unfavoured race/class combo?

Firs off, why? Second, why? It's decent enough that racials are already a factor in selecting your classes. That being said, it won't be out of place for race/class combinations to not exist unless you get to a point where you just don't see it working out too well for the group (once had a dwarf raised by fey that took the sorceror Abyssal bloodline).

In Golarion, it is ok for their to be the different combinations. Don't like? Go back to 3.5 where Half-Orcs were given extremely lousy racials and then saddled with the barbarian class because it fits the 'stereotype'. Sorry, but the days of humans being everything and all other races get painted itno corners are numbered unless you invoke GM Rule.

[Ashtagon]

Firs off, why? Second, why?

Because, and because.

More serious answers can be found in my posts upthread.


In Golarion, it is ok for their to be the different combinations. Don't like? Go back to 3.5 where Half-Orcs were given extremely lousy racials and then saddled with the barbarian class because it fits the 'stereotype'. Sorry, but the days of humans being everything and all other races get painted itno corners are numbered unless you invoke GM Rule.

You'll know, having read my posts in this thread, that I also propose restricting humans with these changes to favoured/unfavoured class concepts, and that it would be a setting-specific thing.

Some mostly like the PF rules but aren't big on Golarion.

[QuidEst]

I would try and restrict it to banning a few favored class options for each race. Then you're discouraging certain combinations. If you remove all the favored class choices except for a few, then penalize certain ones as well, players will feel pigeonholed. The former method is "Wizards aren't usually elves or gnomes", still leaving quite a few options, whereas the latter is "Bards are usually elves or halflings, and almost never humans or half-orcs", which feels like the DM is telling me what to play. (I think most players will look at it from the point of view of the class they want. Meaning with humans, for instance, some classes are penalized if they want an extra feat, while others are rewarded.)

The carrot and stick business feels a lot less friendly than politely stating that in this campaign, blah and blah are rare for such-and-such reasons, then working with the players if they want to do it anyway.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Well if you dont want peoples to argue with you i dont get why you even post on a forum.

You did basically say that any penalties for roleplay reasons is badwrongfun.

But I don't think penalties are the way to go. No, I think the right way is customization. Dwarf wizards have to be Abjurers or Focused Abjurers, but they only lose one or two schools, respectively. Elf paladins lose heavy armor prof, but can Smite with ranged attacks. Half-orc bards, dwarf sorcerers, and such are taken care of with racial penalties to important stats.

[Urpriest]

I'd rather do things the other way, really. Change your world to match what the rules say the classes are good at. There's no reason to make your world one in which Dwarves don't tend to be Wizards, when Dwarves are good at being Wizards. If Dwarves are good at being Wizards, they should be Wizards.

On another level, PF-style favored classes are primarily an encouragement to single-class, not an encouragement for a race to take thematically linked classes. To the extent that PF-favored classes do encourage thematic lines, they do so with specialized favored class bonuses, the equivalent of 3.5's racial ACFs. So what you want to decide is not "how do I discourage certain classes", but rather "how do I encourage characters taking certain classes to make certain build choices". If Dwarves make good Wizards by their stats, then why aren't Dwarves Wizards more often? Well perhaps they are untrustworthy. Perhaps Dwarves get Wizard-only options that synergize well with multiclassing with Rogue. That way a player Dwarf Wizard is not taking a disadvantage for nothing, but rather is being guided towards your idea of how Dwarf Wizards should play.

Unfavored classes as presented in the OP could actually accomplish this, since what they are is an encouragement to multiclass. But it needs to be carefully targeted so you know what the real incentive is.

[Ashtagon]

I'd rather do things the other way, really. Change your world to match what the rules say the classes are good at. There's no reason to make your world one in which Dwarves don't tend to be Wizards, when Dwarves are good at being Wizards. If Dwarves are good at being Wizards, they should be Wizards.

I see a very good reason to do it a certain way: To tell a specific story. The War of the lance would be meaningless with freely available divine healing magic. Having the first healer in centuries was a big deal. Lord of the Rings would have been cut short if the party had overland flight magic. The list goes on.


On another level, PF-style favored classes are primarily an encouragement to single-class, not an encouragement for a race to take thematically linked classes. To the extent that PF-favored classes do encourage thematic lines, they do so with specialized favored class bonuses, the equivalent of 3.5's racial ACFs. So what you want to decide is not "how do I discourage certain classes", but rather "how do I encourage characters taking certain classes to make certain build choices". If Dwarves make good Wizards by their stats, then why aren't Dwarves Wizards more often? Well perhaps they are untrustworthy. Perhaps Dwarves get Wizard-only options that synergize well with multiclassing with Rogue. That way a player Dwarf Wizard is not taking a disadvantage for nothing, but rather is being guided towards your idea of how Dwarf Wizards should play.

Unfavored classes as presented in the OP could actually accomplish this, since what they are is an encouragement to multiclass. But it needs to be carefully targeted so you know what the real incentive is.

Hmm, the hp/skill penalty was intended as an encouragement something else as a class. I can see how capping the number of unfavoured class levels is an encouragement to multi-class. But I've already decided I don't want to introduce what is effectively a level cap.

[ThiagoMartell]

I see a very good reason to do it a certain way: To tell a specific story. The War of the lance would be meaningless with freely available divine healing magic. Having the first healer in centuries was a big deal. Lord of the Rings would have been cut short if the party had overland flight magic. The list goes on.

But but...
but that's Urpriest's point! :smallconfused:

[Urpriest]

I see a very good reason to do it a certain way: To tell a specific story. The War of the lance would be meaningless with freely available divine healing magic. Having the first healer in centuries was a big deal. Lord of the Rings would have been cut short if the party had overland flight magic. The list goes on.

But again, why have a setting in which the War of the Lance happens? Why have a setting in which powerful individuals can't just waltz across the world to do what they need to? Sure they are good stories, but the stories you can tell with the normal D&D rules are also good stories. If you're choosing to use D&D 3.5, you're choosing to tell the sorts of stories D&D 3.5 tells, and not others. Dwarves who traditionally aren't Wizards are a different race than a D&D 3.5 Dwarf, and need not have any of the same traits.




Hmm, the hp/skill penalty was intended as an encouragement something else as a class. I can see how capping the number of unfavoured class levels is an encouragement to multi-class. But I've already decided I don't want to introduce what is effectively a level cap.

Encouraging people take a different class will just make it so it never comes up. You want rules that get used. What you need to decide is not how to stop people from playing Dwarf Wizards, but rather in what ways a Dwarf Wizard should be different from a Wizard of another race. More multiclassed is certainly one answer, and while level caps are a poor way of doing it, having a hp/skill point penalty, or even just removing the choice of picking the class as a favored class, is another.

[Tvtyrant]

If you want racial combinations to be more important, you could always just create slightly OP racial substitution levels for the correct classes. Or just make a metric ton of racial substitution levels to differentiate between the races. A dwarf wizard who trades spell slots for above level magic items for instance.

[Psyren]

I see a very good reason to do it a certain way: To tell a specific story. The War of the lance would be meaningless with freely available divine healing magic. Having the first healer in centuries was a big deal. Lord of the Rings would have been cut short if the party had overland flight magic. The list goes on.

Neither of those examples have anything to do with race/class combinations though. You're not banning particular classes, you're telling the players that to play a particular class they need a particular race as well.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Neither of those examples have anything to do with race/class combinations though. You're not banning particular classes, you're telling the players that to play a particular class they need a particular race as well.

Yeah. War of the Lance would be saying "there are no clerics, druids, or healers", not "dwarf wizards are weaker". In fact, I would be more fine with you banning dwarf wizard, rather than cutting their CL. I still wouldn't like it, and unless "dwarves don't have arcane magic" is a big plot point, I wouldn't even see a reason for it.

Also, LotR did have Overland Flight. It's called giant eagles. Seriously, there's a cartoon vid on YouTube called "how LotR should've happened", or something like that, and it was eveyone just soaring across Mordor on the eagles, with Frodo dropping the ring in over the volcano.

[ThiagoMartell]

Also, LotR did have Overland Flight. It's called giant eagles. Seriously, there's a cartoon vid on YouTube called "how LotR should've happened", or something like that, and it was eveyone just soaring across Mordor on the eagles, with Frodo dropping the ring in over the volcano.
Not only that, this was mentioned by a NYT critic when LotR was published in the US. Tolkien dealt with a lot of people asking about the eagles. His final answer? "I just hadn't thought aboua that."

[137beth]

If buffs and nerfs are effectively equivalent as you say, why not take the more positive option and use buffs so your players will be happier?
Where the heck are you getting the idea that the players will always be happier with a buff?:smallconfused:
First off, the players are not stupid, they understand that balance can be achieved the same either way.
Second, if you told your players "okay, from now on, everyone with start at ECL 999. That's a buff, are ya happy?", you would fundamentally transform the power level of the game. A lot of people play E6 because they prefer low-powered games. I wouldn't expect them to be happy with an enormous buff. Now, if your players prefer being gods, then a buff for them and their enemies is the way to go. But most people find that that level of play gets out of hand. In short, players are not made happy by buffs, they are made happy by an adjustment to their preferred power level, which might be higher or lower from what it currently is.


But again, why have a setting in which the War of the Lance happens? Why have a setting in which powerful individuals can't just waltz across the world to do what they need to? Sure they are good stories, but the stories you can tell with the normal D&D rules are also good stories. If you're choosing to use D&D 3.5, you're choosing to tell the sorts of stories D&D 3.5 tells, and not others. Dwarves who traditionally aren't Wizards are a different race than a D&D 3.5 Dwarf, and need not have any of the same traits.

The whole reason people still play table top games as opposed to video games is flexibility and customization. Heck, there are a ton of explanations in the books about how to alter the game for a very different world. The core D&D rules can't tell stories about warforged, and yet there is a setting which can. For that matter, if you insist on sticking with what WotC gave us, then why bother homebrewing at all, since you "chose D&D 3.5"?
The DMG doesn't say "in order to play, you must set your campaign in Greyhawk." It says that you are free to design your own setting.


But but...
but that's Urpriest's point!
No, Urpriest suggested altering the world to match the rules, Ashtagon wants to alter the rules to fit the story, which, IMO, is the purpose of RPGS.


Well if you dont want peoples to argue with you i dont get why you even post on a forum.
He posted for advice on appropriate penalties for unfavored classes. You might notice that nowhere in the first post does it say "hey, if you don't like playing with unfavored classes, tell be my playing preferences are terrible." He said "assuming this is my preference, how best should I implement it."

[ThiagoMartell]

No, Urpriest suggested altering the world to match the rules, Ashtagon wants to alter the rules to fit the story, which, IMO, is the purpose of RPGS.

That's not what I understood. I understood that the world must match the rules, and that's absolutely correct. You may change the world, or you may change the rules, it really doesn't matter, but they must relate to each other in a way.
Like Urpriest said, dwarves actually make pretty good wizards in D&D 3.5. Adding a few penalties for dwarvern wizards is not really going to change that. If you don't want dwarven wizards, you're better off saying "no dwarven wizards" or actually changing the dwarven class. Give it a racial trait that means they can't cast spells, I don't know. But "unfavored class" still seems like a horrible idea for me.

[Hiro Protagonest]

No, Urpriest suggested altering the world to match the rules, Ashtagon wants to alter the rules to fit the story, which, IMO, is the purpose of RPGS.

Not for D&D it isn't. Strands of Fate is a flexible RPG, meant to take huge amounts of ideas within its rules. If you want flexibility, go buy that. But D&D, WotC D&D especially, is specifically suited for high-magic campaigns where there's a cleric and wizard in every party, and breaks down when the 20th level paladin has a +2 keen greatsword, +1 fortification breastplate, and Winged Boots as his only magic items in a game with no spellcasters, while facing level-appropriate devils, demons, or dragons.

[Urpriest]

The whole reason people still play table top games as opposed to video games is flexibility and customization. Heck, there are a ton of explanations in the books about how to alter the game for a very different world. The core D&D rules can't tell stories about warforged, and yet there is a setting which can. For that matter, if you insist on sticking with what WotC gave us, then why bother homebrewing at all, since you "chose D&D 3.5"?
The DMG doesn't say "in order to play, you must set your campaign in Greyhawk." It says that you are free to design your own setting.


First of all, video games are just as flexible in setting as tabletop games. A game designer can make a video game set wherever they want, subject to the limits of the program, and a DM can have an RPG set wherever they want, subject to the limits of the rules. The differences come in the options available to players, not to the people choosing the setting.

Second, if you look at most homebrew, you'll notice it falls into one of two categories: either someone believes that the rules don't provide for a particular gamestyle, and attempts to fix it (Tier 3 Hexblades, for example), or someone wants to introduce something new into the world (Ozodrin, new ToB disciplines). What you don't usually get is somebody modifying an existing race for non-mechanical reasons. If you want stout, hairy folk who are bad at being Wizards, is there any particular reason to make them Dwarves, when Dwarves are already a race that makes fairly good Wizards?

Remember, D&D 3.5 is a dead game. The people who still play it do so because they enjoy the interactions of the massive snarl of rules that it became, not because they're looking for something new to play their preexisting setting or their favorite genre. If you've got a preexisting setting, you go get a system that does it well, you don't go after a long-dead rules-heavy system with its own assumptions.

[137beth]

I think of the rules as a vehicle for describing the world, not vice versa, and so I prefer changing the rules to match the world. Currently, dwarves make good wizards, the point of a penalty is to change it. Why do you think a penalty couldn't change it?!? If the penalty were "dwarf wizards get a -3 to constitution", then yes, it would mean dwarfs would make terrible wizards. And the OP made it clear that he does not want to BAN anything. In his world, dwarfs can be wizards, they are just less effective. So banning would not make sense in that world, but a penalty would.
And once again, if unfavored classes seem like a horrible idea to you, then you are probably on the wrong thread (unless I have horribly misinterpreted the thread's purpose).

[navar100]

I'm somewhat surprised at the number of posts in this threads that are there to tell me I'm being stupid or playing the game wrong. People, if you need to flame, you don't need to post it.

(back to the topic now, please?)

It's not so much as playing wrong as it's a bad idea. It hurts more than it helps, and it doesn't really help at all.

[Augmental]

And once again, if unfavored classes seem like a horrible idea to you, then you are probably on the wrong thread (unless I have horribly misinterpreted the thread's purpose).

If a DM posted a thread asking for tips on how to kill off a character that he didn't like, and he hadn't discussed the issue with the player yet, would you provide advice for how to kill the character, or point out to him why it's a bad idea?

[sreservoir]

If a DM posted a thread asking for tips on how to kill off a character that he didn't like, and he hadn't discussed the issue with the player yet, would you provide advice for how to kill the character, or point out to him why it's a bad idea?

yes.

(one of those, yes!)

(I'd think that sort of thread would go quite similarly, really, yes.)

[eggs]

And once again, if unfavored classes seem like a horrible idea to you, then you are probably on the wrong thread (unless I have horribly misinterpreted the thread's purpose).
The OP asked:

However, I was wondering if there might be a subtle way of enforcing unfavoured classes....How about something similar to the PF approach?...How reasonable is the basic concept though?
If people are saying that this is unnecessary [given the existing lack of favored class benefits/racial subs], needlessly punitive and unreasonable, that pretty much directly answers the OP's three main questions.

[137beth]

If a DM posted a thread asking for tips on how to kill off a character that he didn't like, and he hadn't discussed the issue with the player yet, would you provide advice for how to kill the character, or point out to him why it's a bad idea?

That is not an idea I would try in my games. I would probably warn the DM. But if the DM and the players prefer the Munchkin style DM-vs-players game, then no, I wouldn't tell them that their playing style was wrong, or try to get them to play differently. If he wants to play with unfavored classes, and his players also want to, then it is a good idea, because it would make everyone happy (or at least, everyone playing the game. Apparently it would upset people who never met the players simply because they don't want to use the idea in their own games.)
You bring up a valid point, however: up till now, I had been assuming that his players were on board with this (while some people in this thread are apparently assuming that the DM is the only one who likes the idea). If they are, then his entire group has agreed on a playing style, and telling him that his group needs to play differently just because you want them to is unnecessary flaming. However, if his entire group dislikes the idea of unfavored classes, then they need to have a talk.

[Dr. Yes]

You bring up a valid point, however: up till now, I had been assuming that his players were on board with this (while some people in this thread are apparently assuming that the DM is the only one who likes the idea).

If the players were on board or thought it was a good idea, one would think the OP would've mentioned that in response to the myriad posts whose primary argument is that unfavored classes would be irritating to players. Where do you get the implication that there's been any in-group discussion?

[137beth]

If the players were on board or thought it was a good idea, one would think the OP would've mentioned that in response to the myriad posts whose primary argument is that unfavored classes would be irritating to players. Where do you get the implication that there's been any in-group discussion?

Simply from the fact that he is brainstorming a house rule. Normally, house rules are only added to existing games if people agree to it. For that matter, he might just be thinking about it as a potential future house rule, which he would keep on the shelf until he had a game in which players agreed to it. However, we don't have very solid evidence of this.

I could ask you the same question, though, Where do you get the implication that there hasn't been any in-group discussion?
Overall, we don't have strong evidence to support one idea or the other. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, or to assume that he simply wouldn't use it with his current group if they didn't like it (or that he was brainstorming an idea that someone else could use). For that matter, if anything substantive comes out of this discussion, I might consider using it in a game (provided that other people liked it, and if someone else here came up with something substantially better than has already been stated).