"Unfavoured" classes

[Ashtagon]

Just as certain classes are intended to be given preferential treatment for certain races, certain classes are "out of character" or "agsinst type" for certain races. There have been various ways to do this.

Classic D&D did this through racial classes. Elves were always fighter/mages; dwarves and halflings were always fighters.

AD&D did this through level limits or outright banning certain race/class combos.

3.x core bans no combos. Various setting-specific supplements ban certain combos.

Are there any other ways to do it? Ones I've seen considered include:


No more than 1/2 (round down) of your class levels may be in unfavoured classes.
10% XP penalty for each unfavoured class you have levels in.
-1 hp or -1 skill point for each unfavoured class level you attain.



I am very much aware that this is a flip-side to favoured classes, and works towards enforcing standard tropes. If your primary complaint is that it doesn't let you play a dwarven wizard whose great-uncle was a dragon and plans on multiclassing into kineticist, I'm not so interested.

This also isn't intended to be a discussion of how to balance wizards against fighters.

What I'm looking for are different ways in which this has, or can be, done, and the pros and cons of each approach.

[HighWater]

There is already some of this in the PHB: many races have bonusses and penalties to certain stats, which make them less suited to fulfill a particular role. Half-Orc Bard, Sorcerer or Wizard is already a punishment. Dwarven Sorcerer? Not quite the best pick. Etc.

[Svata]

Why do you want to dock power for someone playing an unconventional class/race combo?

[Firechanter]

There is already some of this in the PHB: many races have bonusses and penalties to certain stats, which make them less suited to fulfill a particular role. Half-Orc Bard, Sorcerer or Wizard is already a punishment. Dwarven Sorcerer? Not quite the best pick. Etc.

This. An "unfavoured class" is one to whose primary stat your race gets a penalty. It pretty much sorts itself out.

[Jeff the Green]

Setting-specific flavour. Please refer to my comments regarding power level effects these rules have.

Sorry, I don't understand. What comments?

I also don't see the point. If you want most dwarves to be fighters, say most dwarves are fighters, and then if a player wants to play a dwarf wizard, you say "fine, you just need to remember that you're going to be seen as an odd duck and work out your backstory within the constraints of the world."

[Vaz]

If setting specific just outright ban them like Rokugan. No wizards/wu jen etc, clerics possibly lose access to Spellcasting.

[Jeff the Green]

What I'm looking for are different ways in which this has, or can be, done, and the pros and cons of each approach.

That... didn't answer my question.

[Ashtagon]

That... didn't answer my question.

Nonetheless, it is what I was hoping to discuss in this thread. If it didn't answer your question, it would be because your question would have derailed the thread.

[hymer]

I have no houserules to enforce these tropes. I have no wizard or sorcerer dwarf NPCs, and no half-orc paladins or sorcerers, e.g. If a player makes one, it'll be the only one in the world, and depending on the exact circumstances, may get some social effects to highlight that.
I guess my main reason for not making house rules about it is actually that I'd literally have to go through every race and class combo and yes/no it. This would lock me in (which can be both good and bad) and mean quite a bit of work which might never have an effect. Only one of my players is prone to create characters that don't rhyme with the setting and the other PCs.

[BWR]

I have no houserules to enforce these tropes. I have no wizard or sorcerer dwarf NPCs, and no half-orc paladins or sorcerers, e.g. If a player makes one, it'll be the only one in the world, and depending on the exact circumstances, may get some social effects to highlight that.
I guess my main reason for not making house rules about it is actually that I'd literally have to go through every race and class combo and yes/no it. This would lock me in (which can be both good and bad) and mean quite a bit of work which might never have an effect. Only one of my players is prone to create characters that don't rhyme with the setting and the other PCs.

Pretty much this. If preventing certain combinations is such a big deal, just tell players in advance that they can't instead of making a whole bunch of annoying and limiting mechanical factors. Thing about the racial limitations of earlier editions is that designers were always making exceptions or new mechanics to circumvent them.
Dwarves are only fighters in BECMI? "Dwarves of Rockhome" introduces the dwarf cleric.
Elves are all fighter mages in BECMI? Supplement X introduces the single-classed elf.
Humans can't mix 'n' match classes in BECMI? Well, in "Dawn of the Empires" they can become fighter-mages.
Elves have level limits in AD&D? Well, Arcane Age supplements and remove those limits.

[nedz]

We have the standard Stick approach of 3.5 and also the Carrot approach of PF, which your third suggestion is the inversion of. All of your suggestions are Sticks, maybe you should consider some Carrots ? A starting point might be to invert your current Sticks — which yields three more possible solutions.

Your second Stick BTW runs into trouble if you take lots of one level Dips. Dipping 10 unfavoured classes would result in a 100% xp penalty.

Another common approach is to ignore FCs completely.

One thing you haven't considered is the rules bias towards PhB classes. Very few races have favoured classes which are outside of the PhB. This can lead onto questions about balance, which I shall avoid.

[hymer]

One thing you haven't considered is the rules bias towards PhB classes. Very few races have favoured classes which are outside of the PhB. This can lead onto questions about balance, which I shall avoid.

I'm running a campaign where the number of races is strictly limited, but each has more than one favoured class (and levels in favoured classes get +1 skill point). This also happened to let me essentially give a little extra skill points to classes below tier 2, as I didn't make tier 1s and 2s anyone's favoured class. It's a(nother) small thing, but it does make it a little less annoying to play low tier classes.
And I didn't have to go through every possible combo, just pick the ones applicable.

[nedz]

I'm running a campaign where the number of races is strictly limited, but each has more than one favoured class (and levels in favoured classes get +1 skill point). This also happened to let me essentially give a little extra skill points to classes below tier 2, as I didn't make tier 1s and 2s anyone's favoured class. It's a(nother) small thing, but it does make it a little less annoying to play low tier classes.
And I didn't have to go through every possible combo, just pick the ones applicable.

That's an interesting idea — Give FC carrots to low tier classes. Now you could invert this by giving FC sticks to high tier classes — by making no high tier class an FC. Or you could subvert this by ignoring FCs and giving more skill points to low tier classes ?

[hymer]

Or you could subvert this by ignoring FCs and giving more skill points to low tier classes ?

The allowed tier 5s already get two bonus points, and two extra class skills.

[John Longarrow]

Just as certain classes are intended to be given preferential treatment for certain races, certain classes are "out of character" or "agsinst type" for certain races.

From what I've found, having penalties to diplomacy and RP related issues often works well.

"1/2 orc paladin? Come ON!! Who's gonna believe that harry killing machine is actually a good guy? Probably killed the poor paladin and stole his armor! Cut that dog down where he stands!"
"Dwarf Sorcerer? Yea, we fell for that one. Come on, where's your spell book..."
"Elf Barbarian, Hey, get the healer in here! We got a poor elf that's suffering from some kind of mental illness.. Check if she's been cursed!"

This doesn't force players to keep to racial prefered classes, but it does affect how the RP side runs.

Oddly, in my current game (really wierd, but short term fun one) the 1/2 minotaur Orc seems to always have fantastic luck with kids. We figure the dice gods decided he just looks like a stuffed animal or something... :elan:

[Jeff the Green]

Nonetheless, it is what I was hoping to discuss in this thread. If it didn't answer your question, it would be because your question would have derailed the thread.

Wait, what? I ask you what specifically you're not asking for and that's derailing?

[Boci]

From what I've found, having penalties to diplomacy and RP related issues often works well.

"1/2 orc paladin? Come ON!! Who's gonna believe that harry killing machine is actually a good guy? Probably killed the poor paladin and stole his armor! Cut that dog down where he stands!"
"Dwarf Sorcerer? Yea, we fell for that one. Come on, where's your spell book..."
"Elf Barbarian, Hey, get the healer in here! We got a poor elf that's suffering from some kind of mental illness.. Check if she's been cursed!"

This doesn't force players to keep to racial prefered classes, but it does affect how the RP side runs.

I'll give you paladin, and sorceror to a lesser extent, but how do the NPCs known the elf is a barbarian, as oppose to a fighter (or ranger with an unconventional weapon choice)?

[Jeff the Green]

I'll give you paladin, and sorceror to a lesser extent, but how do the NPCs known the elf is a barbarian, as oppose to a fighter (or ranger with an unconventional weapon choice)?

Illiteracy, lighter armor, frothing at the mouth?

[Boci]

Illiteracy, lighter armor, frothing at the mouth?

Lighter armour means nothing, they could just be a fighter who value mobility (plus ligher armour doesn't rule out ranger). Illiteracy won't a;ways comes up, not to mention a barbarian can be literate and non-barbarians can be illiterate, and if they see the elf frothing at the mouth that means he's raging, which means they can clearly see he's a barbarian.

[John Longarrow]

I'll give you paladin, and sorceror to a lesser extent, but how do the NPCs known the elf is a barbarian, as oppose to a fighter (or ranger with an unconventional weapon choice)?

If the game has limits on what classes people can play, odds are the NPCs can see the sign over their head saying "Elf Female, CN, Barbarian - 6"...

More the "They rage, they move fast, they seem uncivilized and can't read..."

[Boci]

More the "They rage, they move fast, they seem uncivilized and can't read..."

And upon seeing that their assumption is "they must be cursed", not "wow, not many elves are barbarians? There's RPing responses to unconventional race/class combinations, and then there's NPCs being idiots.

[John Longarrow]

And upon seeing that their assumption is "they must be cursed", not "wow, not many elves are barbarians? There's RPing responses to unconventional race/class combinations, and then there's NPCs being idiots.
Boci

"Elf Barbarian, Hey, get the healer in here! We got a poor elf that's suffering from some kind of mental illness.. Check if she's been cursed!"

From my first post... :-)

[Boci]

Boci

"Elf Barbarian, Hey, get the healer in here! We got a poor elf that's suffering from some kind of mental illness.. Check if she's been cursed!"

From my first post... :-)

Yeah, I know, that's what I was responding to. They see an elf barbarian, and rather than conclude that its an elf barbarian, they think the elf must be cursed. That is taking RP reaction to unconventional race/class combinations to an absurd level.

[qwertyu63]

Just as certain classes are intended to be given preferential treatment for certain races, certain classes are "out of character" or "agsinst type" for certain races. There have been various ways to do this.

Classic D&D did this through racial classes. Elves were always fighter/mages; dwarves and halflings were always fighters.

AD&D did this through level limits or outright banning certain race/class combos.

3.x core bans no combos. Various setting-specific supplements ban certain combos.

Are there any other ways to do it? Ones I've seen considered include:


No more than 1/2 (round down) of your class levels may be in unfavoured classes.
10% XP penalty for each unfavoured class you have levels in.
-1 hp or -1 skill point for each unfavoured class level you attain.



I am very much aware that this is a flip-side to favoured classes, and works towards enforcing standard tropes. If your primary complaint is that it doesn't let you play a dwarven wizard whose great-uncle was a dragon and plans on multiclassing into kineticist, I'm not so interested.

This also isn't intended to be a discussion of how to balance wizards against fighters.

What I'm looking for are different ways in which this has, or can be, done, and the pros and cons of each approach.

My advice on how to do this would be to not do it at all; a good chunk of the fun of this game (at least for me) is being able to play any combination you see fit. If I want to play a dwarven bard, then screw stereotypes, I'm playing a dwarven bard.

That said, my second best piece of advice: XP penalties.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Setting-specific flavour. Please refer to my comments regarding power level effects these rules have.

With the right backstory and unusual circumstances almost any race/single-class combo can be justified. I'd suggest just making approval of an elevator pitch that includes race/class the first step of character creation. Then you can let through compelling characters who go against the grain while saying no to characters that seem to be odd without a greater purpose. You can also take this opportunity to reject perfectly normal race/class combo's with backstories that don't fit the campaign you have in mind or that are thinly veiled references that you find childish.

Oh and RP, make NPC's react to unusual combinations.

Pro: Good Judgement in the spirit of a concept is usually better than a bunch of restrictions tacked onto character creation.

Con: You might hurt someones feelings when you reject an idea.

[Jeff the Green]

With the right backstory and unusual circumstances almost any race/single-class combo can be justified. I'd suggest just making approval of an elevator pitch that includes race/class the first step of character creation. Then you can let through compelling characters who go against the grain while saying no to characters that seem to be odd without a greater purpose. You can also take this opportunity to reject perfectly normal race/class combo's with backstories that don't fit the campaign you have in mind or that are thinly veiled references that you find childish.

Oh and RP, make NPC's react to unusual combinations.

Pro: Good Judgement in the spirit of a concept is usually better than a bunch of restrictions tacked onto character creation.

Con: You might hurt someones feelings when you reject an idea.

Con: You might reject an idea that could be good just because the player sucks at elevator pitches.

[John Longarrow]

Yeah, I know, that's what I was responding to. They see an elf barbarian, and rather than conclude that its an elf barbarian, they think the elf must be cursed. That is taking RP reaction to unconventional race/class combinations to an absurd level.

Boci,

For myself, it does seem rather.. silly. I'm not debating what the OP wants an if it is a good idea or not. I'm trying to give how it can be done in game without elaborate rules or potential balance issues. Keeping it as an RP based issue instead of a game mechanic avoids the most problems. It does, how ever, lead to some silly conclusions. We've seen this in real life, so its not too far off from how narrow minded NPCs (or real life narrow minded people) will react.

If you don't think people do dumb things, take a look at that wierd church in westboro that protests military funerals.

[Jeff the Green]

Boci,

For myself, it does seem rather.. silly. I'm not debating what the OP wants an if it is a good idea or not. I'm trying to give how it can be done in game without elaborate rules or potential balance issues. Keeping it as an RP based issue instead of a game mechanic avoids the most problems. It does, how ever, lead to some silly conclusions. We've seen this in real life, so its not too far off from how narrow minded NPCs (or real life narrow minded people) will react.

If you don't think people do dumb things, take a look at that wierd church in westboro that protests military funerals.

Eh, it makes perfect sense when you realize they get settlements from the various jurisdictions that unconstitutionally try to prevent them.

The example isn't entirely unrealistic, though. Racism can make people very, very stupid. They might know, intellectually, if they stop to think, that there exist elf barbarians, but the idea of elf = magical, refined girlyman is engrained in their heads it will never occur to them in the moment.

[Boci]

Boci,

If you quote my post it seems a bit redundant to then specifically address the reply to me.


For myself, it does seem rather.. silly.

But they weren't. If orcs have a reputation for brutality, people disbelieving a half-orc paladin is completely reasonable. I was just warning that the elf example maybe taking things to far.

[Vaz]

I'm in the middle of writing a handbook on Rokugan over on minmax boards.

Basically, it's up to the DM if Rokugan is part of the cosmology - either an alternate plane (I run it as such when I play), or a completely seperate cosmology.

When you look at classes within Rokugan, you have the following breakdown -

Rokugan allowed
Rokugan allowed, clan specific (either changes or limitations)
non-Rokugani culture class
"Extraplanar"

In the event of Extraplanar, that's where the DM's decision comes in - if you're playing in Rokugan, but want to play a Wizard (Arcane casting is a nono within the clans, and Wizard casting (i assume this to mean Spellbook/Prepared, so applies to Wu Jen, which in OA are called out as not being Rokugani friendly), then you're considered Extraplanar. This doesn't mean you can be targeted with banishment, or anything, it's just the term I used to represent a class that's not featured within Rokugan or those races which neighbour it. If, as a wizard, you are discovered casting arcane spells (the Divine spells of the Shugenja have highly ritualised magics, so they will be able to identify when you don't), that is near enough indication of being a Bloodspeaker (read, bad juju, and likely to see an entire clan dedicated to hunting you down if discovered outside of the Shadowlands). As for using a spellbook, well, it doesn't explicitly say, but the clans wouldn't be appreciative, let's say.

It's unlikely you'd qualify to take any prestige classes of the clan specifics, your spell access wouldn't improve with Rokugani spells, you'd be shunned at court (as would your allies), basically making progression through the clan near impossible. Of course that leads to great Roleplaying opportunities - hiding to prepare your spells for the day, only casting certain spells that could be conceivably be divine in nature when around Shugenja, etc.

A Druid, for example, is not part of the Rokugani clans - but the Shinomen Naga however, do make use of Druidism. A Human Druid who can Wild Shape would be treated with suspicion, but also a bit of respect, and be constantly confused as being a Naga by those who are aware of them, while those who aren't would probably assume you were some shapeshifting Oni, and stick your head on a yari.

Rangers within the clans are available, but with the exception of the Kitsune clan, who share a deep spiritual connection with the Shinomen forest, all of them lose Spellcasting, because the Rangers represent the hunters of the clan - inevitably taking the role of Archer (as Samurai practise the Daisho), rather than someone with a connection to the wild like the PHB suggests. This is an example of some classes having particular restrictions to the clans.

Finally, is the Samurai - a class accessible by all of the clans. Obviously, each clan has access to different prestige classes and feats, and has different interactions, but this is no different than any other setting - Forgotten Realms with its Zhentarim Fighters wouldn't be particularly appreciated in the Dalelands, similar to how Unicorn Clan Samurai wouldn't find good company among Lion Clans.

[mr_odd]

I mean, if a player came to me and said "Look, I really want to play a Half-Orc Bard," with a straight face, I might give them a bonus feat or something.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Con: You might reject an idea that could be good just because the player sucks at elevator pitches.

Pro: Your players might learn how to do better elevator pitches.

[Boci]

Pro: Your players might learn how to do better elevator pitches.

"I'm not going to allow you to play what you want until you get better at pitching your character concept" doesn't seem like it will lead to a good atmosphere. There's nothing wrong with the Dm require extra background story for some character concept, but its questionable if that's warranted for a half-ork bard.

[Person_Man]

Consider providing racial bonuses and/or Feats which would make certain class choices more optimal.

For example, let's say that all High Elves get +4 to Intelligence and a +4 bonus to Concentration, Knowledge (Arcana), and Spellcraft checks, because they are genetically more intelligent and their culture involves a heavy emphasis on meditation and studying the arcane arts.

And if you really wanted to put you hand heavily on the scale for certain multi-class combinations, you could also make a line of Feats that require High Elf as a prerequisite that improve magical ability in various ways, and/or give it the thematic elements you want, and/or multi-class the way you prefer through synergy Feats. You could give such Feats as bonus racial Feats or racial Feat options, just as the Hellbred race gains certain Feat options as it gains hit dice. For example: Highborn Spellstriker: Pre-req: High Elf race, ability to cast arcane spells, Sneak Attack 1d6, Evasion class ability. Benefit: Your Wizard and Rogue levels stack to determine the effectiveness of your Sneak Attack ability.

In this example, a larger number (and perhaps a very large majority) of High Elves in your game world with class levels would naturally choose to become an arcane magic Intelligence based class, like Wizard or Factotum, and you'd have a lot more Rogue 2/Wizard 18 with the Highborn Spellstriker Feat running around. But players who wanted to play a High Elf wouldn't face any penalty. (Though it may be less optimal then other racial choices, depending on how other races are structured).

Having said all of the above, I would never do such a thing without the explicit buy in of all of my players. Sometimes players have a narrative or emotional reason that they want to play a certain race/class and/or multi-class combination. Screwing those players with your mechanics (or giving them less goodies, as I suggest) is rarely a good DM decision.

[Nightraiderx]

Could always give point buy bonuses to staying in favored classes vs. unfavored classes.
Giving a slight edge to be more well-rounded due to it being easier to learn from others rather than
having to struggle learning a role on your own if no one of your community uses that class.

[Boci]

Could always give point buy bonuses to staying in favored classes vs. unfavored classes.
Giving a slight edge to be more well-rounded due to it being easier to learn from others rather than
having to struggle learning a role on your own if no one of your community uses that class.

But what if a player changed their mind about their class progression several levels into the game?

[Kantolin]

If orcs have a reputation for brutality, people disbelieving a half-orc paladin is completely reasonable.

As something to throw out there for someone who has totally played a half-orc paladin, I actually find this kinda awesome. Or well, part of why I wanted to be a half-orc paladin was because this was unusual for orcs. Not every roleplay idea needs to be 'and everyone in town welcomes you with open arms' - if half-orcs are not easily accepted in cities, this won't change if one claims to be a paladin. At least... not at first. Selfless actions and good old-fashioned heroics will probably change a few people's minds - while other people will stubbornly refuse to notice the facts presented to them.

(Although I'll note that the PHB itself suggests half-orc paladins as an idea)

Aaaaaaaaanyway, I don't think putting punishments on going against race is a good idea. It leads to two options - one is that it doesn't come up because nobody elects to play against race, and the other is that someone does opt to play and then is punished repeatedly by being behind.

A can happen more easily by just talking to the players.

B is a problem, though. You're basically saying, "Sure, you can come to table, but I'm going to try to ensure you have less fun." May as well throw in a 'mwa ha ha' or two while you're at it. :P

And if they /do/ attempt this anyway and opt to play a gnome fighter, you are then nerfing someone who doesn't need a nerf. They (presumably there's no huge optimization differences) will fall behind, be constantly less capable of doing tasks, and probably end up being a bit character, and it sucks to accidentally make a bit character when that's not your goal. If you're in a location with party-roles, the party may also find that they can't fill them, bringing everyone down (If it's a something rogue and they're facing the penalty, they may not have the skills high enough they need to function... clerics may not have access to remove disease in time... fighters will be behind on hit points and feat chains...) which may make the rest of the group resent that person.

Or nobody cares about it, in which the penalty doesn't do anything.

It also may mess with good ideas. I could see an orc tribe having the (perhaps unlucky) orc who's job it is to keep the chants alive from generation to generation. I could see an orc tribe being ravaged by magic and a smarter one desperately trying to figure out this 'magic' thing so they can properly fight against it. I could see an arrogant elf saying, 'See, nothing to this whole 'barbarian' thing' just to rub in elven superiority... and then discovering that he really /likes/ the feeling of just letting go, and the elven council not liking his popularity mixed with his nontraditional behavior and thus finding roundabout ways to silence him... heck, one of my favorite characters was a half-orc psionic-sort who bloody hated it, but kept going at it because he had a talent for psionics (unlike pretty much any other orc) and thus it became his duty to keep the tribe protected from it.

Aren't the social constraints sufficient? The whole thing is a social restriction more than anything else - the reason elves tend to be wizards and not barbarians is purely a function of their society. If anything, aim for more carrots than sticks - listen to Person Man; his suggestion is a good one. Of course, 'listen to Person Man' is good advice in general.

[Telonius]

Another method of giving a class some racial flavor is using Racial Substitution levels. It's not exactly a "carrot" approach, and not exactly a "stick" approach either. More like a different racial spin on the basic class chassis. There are situations where the racial substitution is flat-out better than the base class (Goliath Barbarian, for instance) but most of them have more-or-less even trades.

[Boci]

As something to throw out there for someone who has totally played a half-orc paladin, I actually find this kinda awesome.

I agree, the inherent mechanical "bias" a race has towards a class based on stat modifiers and abilities, combined with the cultural preferences of the class and RPing NPC's reactions to unconventional race/class combos is sufficient, just don't take the disbelief too far, otherwise it will become predictable and lose its charm.

[Kantolin]

just don't take the disbelief too far, otherwise it will become predictable and lose its charm.

Whoops! I totally agree with you - rereading my quote, it does seem like I was in disagreement. ^_^

Yeah, you definitely should not have literally everyone react the same way. Sure, some people will remain stuck in 'No that's wrong yes even then I don't care that you rescued my daughter', but some people should be curious (Does that... where did you /learn/ magic? Orcs don't cast magic), some people can have been misinformed (I thought /all/ elves summoned unicorns! You don't?), some can have had no idea (Huh, I thought elves were graceful. That kinda makes you easier to relate to in a way), and the largest chunk of people probably won't care too much ('nother group of adventurers. Crazies are dime a dozen nowadays).

Definitely shouldn't walk around with an auto-banner 'Hey everybody, I'm a barbarian!' Unless, I suppose, the character is walking around frothing at the mouth /literally/ all the time, which would concern me for reasons beyond his selection of class. :P

(Isn't it possible to make an elf barbarian with the PHB2 alternate rage feature who is /actually/ always in rage? If so, that'd actually be kinda funny. Still, that's the exception and not the rule)

[ngilop]

I must be an odd duck here becuase I see not a whole lot wrong with wanting for enforce certain race/class combinations

in my world a dwarf being a wizard is as common as a real life earth shark swimming in a volcano.

[Boci]

I must be an odd duck here becuase I see not a whole lot wrong with wanting for enforce certain race/class combinations

in my world a dwarf being a wizard is as common as a real life earth shark swimming in a volcano.

Fair enough for that as a piece of setting lore, but does that need to apply to dwarven PCs too? Being adventurers they are already atypical of their race, no?

Also, that means dwarves are reliant and items and the divine for magic, which leaves several gaps in their magical capabilities. For one, their battle field conjuration should be subpar, which is brutally effective in tunnels, as the limited area could easily still be enough to **** off a tunnel and dictate to an extent the battle field layout.


(Isn't it possible to make an elf barbarian with the PHB2 alternate rage feature who is /actually/ always in rage? If so, that'd actually be kinda funny. Still, that's the exception and not the rule)

Yes, but you would need to stay below hp (5 x barb level).

[Kantolin]

in my world a dwarf being a wizard is as common as a real life earth shark swimming in a volcano.

That is absolutely okay and quite acceptable! Nobody has problems with this. If you met a village of dwarven wizards, then that would be an oddity and would result in questions. Which could be okay, mind you.

It's completely okay for the knowledgeable sage who knows everything there is to know about all of the common races discovering that you are a dwarf wizard and going, "...buh? Can that happen?"

It's completely okay for this character to have had a really rough time of it growing up, and when asked, 'Hey wanna go drinking?' to say, "I can't, I'm studying cantrips." and getting, "What in the nine hells is a can trip? Can trip who?" and to basically be somewhere between 'that weird nerd' and 'run out of town', depending on backstory and setting.

It's completely okay to run into an elf who decrees, "Pfft, dwarves can't be /wizards/." And if the dwarf in fact utilizes an arcane spell, the elves can assume it's demons, or fae, or a magical accident, or something.

Nobody is saying any of these things are /wrong/ in and of themselves, and it's possible that players wouldn't want to go against type anyway.

But also none of these are reasons /not/ to have a dwarven wizard to prompt these things. Once in awhile, I'd love to be the dwarven binder who's focusing on these 'vestige' things entirely to make sure, if a problem occurs utilizing them, that the dwarven nation has /someone/ who is an expert on them that can help defend against it. He had a terrific career ahead of him as a potential cleric, but instead left as an acolyte because he perceived this as his duty. A duty that made him the black sheep of his entire clan and gets him dangerous looks whenever he goes to most dwarven kingdoms, and he's not even allowed into churches to worship Moradin anymore (although he still does on the side). But he's going to keep going - even if this is folly, and he in fact culminates the game by losing his soul. Or if he's right, and rifts open up causing destruction that is best dealt with via someone with his knowledge of these forsaken creatures. Or if it just never comes up, and after slaying the evil lich terrorizing the kingdom, he ends the story by simply continuing his studies just in case.

That's a great potential resource!

Heck, to go the other way. If you ask someone, "Hey what're you?" "I'm an elf wizard" "Ah, what's your backstory?" "Uh, my parents were wizards so I'm a wizard now."... that gives you less as DM to work with than "Dwarf Wizard" "Why the heck are you a dwarf wizard?" "I dunno, I wanna try one." And if you don't need a paragraph to explain things, maybe he just saw a wizard while in elven lands when he was young, and thought that was the coolest thing ever. Parents enrolled him in fighter college anyway and he hated every minute of it, so he went and learned / was self taught / had the knack and is really good at / had a magical accident / whatever and became a wizard.

...as an extra note, it's also not generally overpowered to be against-race, both due to stat allocation and because humans are considered an extremely powerful race that are good at everything and are encouraged to be whatever. So that 'min-maxing dwarf wizard' or whatever could probably be human and be at least similarly good, not to mention things like half-orc wizard which is clearly not overpowered insofar as wizards go. I don't think anyone's said this, but it tends to be on people's minds

[ngilop]

Fair enough for that as a piece of setting lore, but does that need to apply to dwarven PCs too? Being adventurers they are already atypical of their race, no?

Also, that means dwarves are reliant and items and the divine for magic, which leaves several gaps in their magical capabilities. For one, their battle field conjuration should be subpar, which is brutally effective in tunnels, as the limited area could easily still be enough to **** off a tunnel and dictate to an extent the battle field layout.



Yes, but you would need to stay below hp (5 x barb level).

I guess im just not seeing how dwzrves being reliant moreso on divine magic is somehow a super weakness

also for tunnel fighting there is the good old Dwarven Defender (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16319167&postcount=9)


I am hoping you can enlighten me how my dwarves are unable to do much without more access to arcane magics. it definatley something id like to shor eup, i the dwarves are so ..exposed I guess without arcane then i would like to work on that.

[Boci]

I guess im just not seeing how dwzrves being reliant moreso on divine magic is somehow a super weakness

It might not be a super weakness, but it does leave some gaps cultures with arcane spell casters could exploit. And even if they don't actively, there will still be some areas they are simply better at.


also for tunnel fighting there is the good old Dwarven Defender (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16319167&postcount=9)

You need to be 7th level before you can take the first level there, so that may have limited influence in large scale battles, depending on the power level of the setting.


I am hoping you can enlighten me how my dwarves are unable to do much without more access to arcane magics. it definatley something id like to shor eup, i the dwarves are so ..exposed I guess without arcane then i would like to work on that.

This really needs its own thread (and someone a bit more knowledgeable than me), but basically, arcane magic is generally better than divine magic. Its much more complicated than that, divine magic does have healing and better buffs for turning you into a fighter, but overall arcane has a better choice available. Non-creature summoning conjuration effects are a notable example: stinking cloud, wall of smoke, cloudkill could effectively shut off a tunnel, thus the army fighting the dwarves could post minimal guards at that tunnel entrance and simply use magic to prevent the dwarves from attacking through there. Or they could get even more sneaky and allow a small number of dwarves through, cast the spell and then slaughter those dwarves who will lose without reinforcements. Similarly covering their own retreat would be much easier with these spells.

[Andezzar]

Another method of giving a class some racial flavor is using Racial Substitution levels. It's not exactly a "carrot" approach, and not exactly a "stick" approach either. More like a different racial spin on the basic class chassis. There are situations where the racial substitution is flat-out better than the base class (Goliath Barbarian, for instance) but most of them have more-or-less even trades.You forgot the Elven Generalist Wizard. That alone should be enough to make most knife ears book worms.

@OP: what race/class combos do you want to encourage?

I get the idea that certain races are particularly known for certain professions and are exceptionally good in them, but don't forget, how many people actually train in PC classes? the Majority of people of any race probably will be commoners and experts*. These professions fulfill most of the needs of a society. So whether you have an elf wizard or an elf barbarian, the characters will be anomalies anyways.

*I left the warrior out because if someone wants to bash in heads for a living, there really is no reason to seleect warrior over fighter

[nedz]

I must be an odd duck here becuase I see not a whole lot wrong with wanting for enforce certain race/class combinations

in my world a dwarf being a wizard is as common as a real life earth shark swimming in a volcano.

Fine, but in my view this should be a setting dependant rule, not a part of the Core ruleset — YMMV

[Coidzor]

I am very much aware that this is a flip-side to favoured classes, and works towards enforcing standard tropes. If your primary complaint is that it doesn't let you play a dwarven wizard whose great-uncle was a dragon and plans on multiclassing into kineticist, I'm not so interested.

Why would you want to go back to the days when only humans could actually hit the level cap? If you don't want people playing as non-humans then either play a retroclone or just ban non-humans and use a setting that doesn't rely on there being anything but various ethnicities of humans instead of a broad spectrum of humanoids.

I don't see a reason for this other than that, really, since the reason for those rules in the first place was because the people in charge at the time didn't want players running around with too many non-humans for some strange reason which has never really adequately come to light.

So, really, you could just as effectively have a rule like "No fewer than half of the party has to be fully Human, no more than a quarter of the party may be fully non-human," and accomplish that aim if you wanted some limited access to non-human PCs.

Edit: Oh, right, since I'm here, I did have the thought that one potential rule could be that every level in an unfavored class needed to be either preceded by and/or followed by a level in a favored class, and that each race would have several favored classes.


But what if a player changed their mind about their class progression several levels into the game?

If their build doesn't end up synergistic and their stat allocations aren't right for what they now want to do, they've already shot themselves in the foot without the DM doing anything.


It might not be a super weakness, but it does leave some gaps cultures with arcane spell casters could exploit. And even if they don't actively, there will still be some areas they are simply better at.

The real reason Kobolds are annoying for Dwarves?

[hymer]

I must be an odd duck here becuase I see not a whole lot wrong with wanting for enforce certain race/class combinations

I'm with you and the OP on it. I think it gives definition to both races and classes when certain combinations just don't happen for whatever reason. I just think that hard and fast rules on this is going a tad far. I really like that there are no goblin paladins, because I find the notion quite ridiculous (I realize some people find it awesome or amusing - I just very much do not), but what about the LE and CE paladin versions? Or I might want to give a character a level in a forbidden class just to use the chassis (Feat rogue to give someone a bunch of skill points for instance, though the character may be someone I wouldn't think should be a rogue). I'll pretend in game that it isn't so.
I don't like when PC parties are travelling weirdos and outcasts. I always end up as straight man as player (which basically means it's all about them, and my paladin has to babysit the lolrandom blind half goblin half gnome thief/mage), and I can't stand them as DM. But to each their own, of course.

[Andezzar]

I don't like when PC parties are travelling weirdos and outcasts.But that's what they are. Regardless of class and race combination, they are people who go out risking life and limb to kill monsters for profit instead of having a proper job and life.

I always end up as straight man as player (which basically means it's all about them, and my paladin has to babysit the lolrandom blind half goblin half gnome thief/mage), and I can't stand them as DM. But to each their own, of course.The special snowflake syndrom is annoying, especially if it forces other characters to babysit the freaky character. But that actually is more of an OOC problem. Realistically the human babysitter paladin probably would not travel around with the blind half goblin half gnome thief/mage if it means devoting much of his efforts to keeping him in line instead of actually doing good, but he still does it because that blind half goblin half gnome thief/mage is one of the few available PCs.

[Boci]

If their build doesn't end up synergistic and their stat allocations aren't right for what they now want to do, they've already shot themselves in the foot without the DM doing anything.

Not necessarily. Dwarves switching from fighter to barbarian for example. Or a half-orc going barbarian 2 / warblade x. Or an elf going from wizard to wizard / sorcerer / ultimate magus.


The real reason Kobolds are annoying for Dwarves?

Could be, could be...


I always end up as straight man as player (which basically means it's all about them, and my paladin has to babysit the lolrandom blind half goblin half gnome thief/mage), and I can't stand them as DM. But to each their own, of course.

Okay, but what about an elf / barbarian? A dwarf sorcerer? Or a half-orc / paladin? Are those really that wierd?

[hymer]

Okay, but what about an elf / barbarian? A dwarf sorcerer? Or a half-orc / paladin? Are those really that wierd?

Elf with barbarian levels I've seen plenty of times. I still think the rage bit is weird, but the rest seems to fit very well. Illiteracy can be gotten rid of. And there are alternative rages that grant you dex instead of strength, which makes a lot of sense fluffed as a battle trance, e.g.
Dwarf sorcerer has the problem that a large percentage of my campaign worlds predates 3.0, and dwarves are fluffed as antimagical for that reason. They can't use arcane magic, but they are also highly resistant to magic. Suddenly changing that demands an explanation, and I don't think I want to change it. Quite the contrary, it feels so right I'd rather enforce it elsewhere (though I don't). So I settle for there being no NPC dwarf arcane casters in my campaigns and leave it at that.
Half-orc paladin has a similar problem. Used to be only humans with charisma 17 or better could be paladins. If the idea of a half-orc paladin PC was brought before me, I'd be asking if something similar couldn't be accomplished with something like cleric, fighter and some prestige class. But I would not be quite so much against it, especially if it was an alternative paladin (freedom, tyranny, etc.).

So they rub me the wrong way to various degrees, but I wouldn't out and out forbid them in my current campaigns. A dwarf sorcerer or wizard would probably not be accepted as a dwarf once he showed what he could do, because it's simply against the definiton of dwarves. In my mind, he'd just be a short human who claims to be a dwarf, but I wouldn't tell the player. The half-orc claiming to be a paladin could find similar but probably smaller social issues. The elf probably would not have trouble at all, even with standard rage, as long as he used it when fighting enemies of the elves. He might be seen as strange by those witnessing his rage fit, but as long as he is clearly in control it would be considered more of a quirk than a flaw.

[Coidzor]

Dwarf sorcerer has the problem that a large percentage of my campaign worlds predates 3.0, and dwarves are fluffed as antimagical for that reason.

Then why are you playing 3.5 in it without updating? :smalltongue:


Half-orc paladin has a similar problem. Used to be only humans with charisma 17 or better could be paladins. If the idea of a half-orc paladin PC was brought before me, I'd be asking if something similar couldn't be accomplished with something like cleric, fighter and some prestige class. But I would not be quite so much against it, especially if it was an alternative paladin (freedom, tyranny, etc.).

Why? What does the charisma score matter? Paladins suck in 3.5 aside from very specific applications, so they don't even have what was going for them in any nostalgic memories for editions past.


The elf probably would not have trouble at all, even with standard rage, as long as he used it when fighting enemies of the elves. He might be seen as strange by those witnessing his rage fit, but as long as he is clearly in control it would be considered more of a quirk than a flaw.

What is "standard rage?" :smalltongue:

[hymer]

@ Coidzor: I take that to mean "I disagree", which makes perfect sense as it's a matter of taste. If there was any of those questions you actually want me to address, I'd be happy to.

[Coidzor]

@ Coidzor: I take that to mean "I disagree", which makes perfect sense as it's a matter of taste. If there was any of those questions you actually want me to address, I'd be happy to.

Mostly it's that of course you're going to run into a lot of problems trying to play in a AD&D world by slapping on 3.5 rules on top of it rather than actually changing the rules of the world so you're not stuck with a bunch of glaring system contradictions. When you've combining contradictory rules sets, either the irresistible force or the immovable object has to be proven a liar or you'll be there all night. :smallconfused:

I probably should've just said that to begin with, sorry.

[hymer]

Well, I ruled in favour of the immovable object, and we're not having any problems. I don't know what made you think there was. We might have problems if someone dearly wanted for there to be, say, many more dwarf bards, but there isn't. So the problem you're describing is entirely hypothetical. The force and the object have yet to meet.

[Coidzor]

Well, I ruled in favour of the immovable object, and we're not having any problems. I don't know what made you think there was. We might have problems if someone dearly wanted for there to be, say, many more dwarf bards, but there isn't. So the problem you're describing is entirely hypothetical. The force and the object have yet to meet.

Well, they met when you decided you wanted to move to 3.5. But if the only stuff you kept on was notions of normative class selections for the various races then there's no risk of other weird artifacts emerging, yeah.

[Kantolin]

I don't like when PC parties are travelling weirdos and outcasts. I always end up as straight man as player (which basically means it's all about them, and my paladin has to babysit the lolrandom blind half goblin half gnome thief/mage), and I can't stand them as DM.

I can kind of see that in general.

But those problems don't sound like 'Goblin Paladin is a problem', it sounds like 'Goblin at all is the problem'. A goblin who walks into a town will probably run into rather severe social trouble whether or not the goblin is a rogue, paladin, or Wu Jen. A party which is a Human, Goblin, Kobold, Lizardman will probably run into issues even if the latter three are all very traditional by-the-book classes. :P

A team of traveling weirdos that consists of an elf, gnome, dwarf, and the human won't necessarily be weirder if the elf and gnome are barbarians, the dwarf is a wizard and the human is a cleric. Unless either of the two barbarians cannot function at all in regular society, but then you'd have that same problem if they were human barbarians that cannot function at all in regular society, which is more common anyway. Or halfling rogues that think they're kender and simply must steal everything not nailed down (give me a halfling barbarian anyday over the badly played kender trope!)

Now in a similar vein, even being an outcast isn't /mandated/ by class. In my setting right now, the main dwarven kingdom isn't /pleased/ by dwarven wizards (who are extremely rare), but nor are they run out of town or anything. They just keep very close tabs on them to make sure there's no shenanigans going on.

You can totally be an outcast without being an unusual class. I'd say the 'rogue who stole something of importance and now is on the run' is a pretty common trope.

Plus, I'd think a half-orc paladin would be /less/ disruptive than a more traditional half-orc barbarian. Half-orc barbarians traditionally want to smash things/people. Half-orc paladins traditionally avoid smashing things/people when they can help it. So if the half-orc is a party member and you have to go see the king, in the case of the paladin it'll be 'But what if the king doesn't like half-orcs', while in the case of the barbarian it could be, 'But what if the king doesn't like half-orcs or the barbarian loses it and starts chopping at things again'.

Not to mention a half-orc raised by his human parent or humans in general can have one/both of his parents be paladins and thus gravitate towards doing what his parents did. Or his parents can be paladins and he can thus gravitate towards doing anything else to rebel. Or his parent could be a tailor but he try to become a paladin just to show that really he's not a monster (that example is listed in the PHB). Or he could be raised by orcs and want to focus on his human heritage and pretend as hard as he can that he's just pure human. Or lots of things; whatever. That specific example hits a little close to home, as it's come up for me personally in an AD&D game when I wanted to do precisely that.

Anyway, any part of one's backstory also doesn't /need/ to come up in game if the DM doesn't care to make it so. If the game involves a lot of time spent in the nine hells slaying demons, then the fact that the elves of Whitecastle do not approve of your character will probably never get screentime - meaning no disruption. So it's as disruptive as any other backstory element is - which is as much as the DM decrees.

For the dwarf angle, would you be more okay with a dwarven arcanist if they were a fighter/mage type? That could be a 'I'm trying really hard to be an arcanist, but my inner resistance is making me suck at it... but I'm an intrinsically good fighter sort'. That actually would also in large part fix social issues, as if they're literally the only one of their type then there aren't social cues in place saying it's bad. Dwarves tend to be practical folk anyway.

None of this requires the setting to suddenly become, 'So dwarves are now swarming with wizards'.

[JusticeZero]

Beyond that, it also restricts people from finding actually good justification for the combos. Which is stupid. I fail to see where you are getting any advantage out of restricting players from being creative on character design.

[squiggit]

I'm not sure it does much. For one, class is a malleable descriptor for lots of broad topics. Most classes can mean lots of different things depending on how you interpret it, which makes the "No X of Y" arguments a little more watery for a lot of classes. Even for more concrete "not a match" options it's sometimes hard to justify one way or the other and extremely subjective

i.e.: Someone earlier in this thread mentioned that half-orcs simply are never paladins in his world... while in most of the settings I've played and read, half-orc paladin is actually a pretty common character design. Someone in a completely different thread said that dwarven bards make no logical sense. To which I scratched my head because we're talking about a race that considers singing songs and swapping grandiose, overblown stories to be cultural norms. And so on and so on.

The worst case scenario is that the PC is uncommon and exceptional for his race. Which still doesn't seem particularly egregious because the PCs are more or less intended to be uncommon and exceptional.

[hymer]

@ Kantolin: :smallconfused:

I don't know what it is you want of me. A goblin paladin would be just as much a problem in an all-goblin campaign as in an all-paladin campaign. There could definitely be campaigns where it fits in nicely, but not one I've ever played in or DMed for. Well there was one Spelljammer campaign, but it lasted only two sessions before it broke down...
Are you trying to convince me to let my players be any combo they want? I already do that.
Are you trying to make me change my campaign worlds because of what you think? I won't do that. :smallsmile:
How can I help you? There would be no fighter/arcane caster dwarf NPCs in my campaign worlds, because in those worlds dwarves are not arcane casters, unless a player makes one. Is that what you wanted to hear?


Beyond that, it also restricts people from finding actually good justification for the combos. Which is stupid. I fail to see where you are getting any advantage out of restricting players from being creative on character design.

This might be adressed to me. Is it? I don't disallow combos out of hand. I would ask a player to make something other than a goblin paladin, because this would fit poorly with the party and world I'm about to DM. If s/he came up with a way to fit in and be only somewhat disruptive, I'd let it fly. The thing is, the players coming up with disruptive characters are usually either interested in causing that disruption, or just didn't think of it. The former should be blocked one way or another, the latter should have their attention pointed to the problem, so a solution can be worked out.

[Synar]

I'm not sure it does much. For one, class is a malleable descriptor for lots of broad topics. Most classes can mean lots of different things depending on how you interpret it, which makes the "No X of Y" arguments a little more watery for a lot of classes. Even for more concrete "not a match" options it's sometimes hard to justify one way or the other and extremely subjective

i.e.: Someone earlier in this thread mentioned that half-orcs simply are never paladins in his world... while in most of the settings I've played and read, half-orc paladin is actually a pretty common character design. Someone in a completely different thread said that dwarven bards make no logical sense. To which I scratched my head because we're talking about a race that considers singing songs and swapping grandiose, overblown stories to be cultural norms. And so on and so on.

The worst case scenario is that the PC is uncommon and exceptional for his race. Which still doesn't seem particularly egregious because the PCs are more or less intended to be uncommon and exceptional.


I fully agree with you.

And for the other examples: dwarfs can't be arcane magic users? Then what about runesmiths? They seem to fit in the stereotype. Elves can't be barbarians? What about wood/water/savage elves or wharammer war dancers? Still pretty fitting to me. Of course, this is setting dependent, but if you don't have monocultures, it should be easy to make those fit.

[Spore]

You should have mild incentives instead of raw nerfing of Race/Class combos. This cultivates stereotypical boring character concepts as well as single class snorefests. I have played enough D&D to be unable to shut off my mental voice screaming at my character in metagaming voice:

"YOUR CHARACTER DOESN'T KNOW THE CLERIC CLASS FEATURES BUT IF YOU DON'T SUNDER HIS HOLY SYMBOL YOUR BARBARIAN IS DOOMED!!"

closely followed by an "Huh, this Dwarf carries an axe and a shield. He must be a fighter." You should put in some work. Give Dwarven fighters a really good homebrew dwarven weapon or perhaps give them fire arms as martial weapons. Give Elven Wizards a free additional spell per level and half their costs to scribe scolls and update their spell book. Give your Halfling Rogue the ability to have any item of 5 GP or less and 1 lbs or less in his "loot bag" (only if the situation asks for it). Gnome bards get a 1/day circumstance bonus on any knowledge skill because they're old enough to have heard the typical tavern rumors trice. All of them. And finally your Half-Orc Barbarians could get a nifty bonus to Jump checks when charging.

[Kantolin]

@ Kantolin: :smallconfused:

I don't know what it is you want of me.

Actually, by part of your post I /think/ we're actually agreeing in general. But then I'm getting confused by some sentences.

I mean, you said:


Are you trying to convince me to let my players be any combo they want? I already do that.

And that's... like, if that's the case, then dandy. The remainder of my statements were pointing out reasonable scenarios where less than common combinations can occur.

:smallsmile: Plus, you sound like a pretty reasonable person/DM. I mean, you said you'd talk to your players if they came up with something that you didn't feel fit in with the setting and have a reasonable conversation, and that's absolutely terrific.

So I think we're good, overall! :smallsmile: All that's left is a little semantics that's nagging at me.


A goblin paladin would be just as much a problem in an all-goblin campaign as in an all-paladin campaign.

I actually find this statement curious - what kind of behavior do you think would come from a goblin paladin that wouldn't come from... uh, any other paladin?

Like, it sounds like the problem is that the goblin is a paladin, but wouldn't come up if he was a lawful good fighter/cleric that the setting thought was a paladin?

I mean, if he spent the entire game wearing a hat of disguise so as not to worry the populace except for those who could pierce that view, uh...

Well, goblins don't /have/ to be silly. They can be in a given setting, but pathfinder goblins actually bug me. Most DMs don't have a lot of plot behind their goblinoids beyond 'I want something for the PCs to beat up on', anyway.



Are you trying to make me change my campaign worlds because of what you think? I won't do that. :smallsmile:

There would be no fighter/arcane caster dwarf NPCs in my campaign worlds, because in those worlds dwarves are not arcane casters, unless a player makes one. Is that what you wanted to hear?

No need for that! Just noting that many unusual combinations /can/ happen. And again, it does sound like you're of the mind that 'By default no, but I am willing to talk about it', which is great and more than sufficient for anything. :smallsmile:

That's a lot more healthy, in fact, than 'I am punishing you for your entertainment', which was more of the vibe of the opening poster, heh.

[hymer]

I actually find this statement curious - what kind of behavior do you think would come from a goblin paladin that wouldn't come from... uh, any other paladin?

Like, it sounds like the problem is that the goblin is a paladin, but wouldn't come up if he was a lawful good fighter/cleric that the setting thought was a paladin?

I mean, if he spent the entire game wearing a hat of disguise so as not to worry the populace except for those who could pierce that view, uh...

Well, goblins don't /have/ to be silly. They can be in a given setting, but pathfinder goblins actually bug me. Most DMs don't have a lot of plot behind their goblinoids beyond 'I want something for the PCs to beat up on', anyway.

In most campaigns goblins are on the side of evil. And presuming (as I did) the standard LG paladin, this character is already muddying the waters with this combination. This may be desirable in some campaigns, and in others it's an absolute no-no.
If the player wants to play a LG paladin in an evil party (regardless of race), this is something that probably needs to be hedged off before it starts. If the paladin is in a good party, and behaving deceitfully by hiding his identity (whatever method he chooses), he could be said to be in daily conflict with the lawful side of his code. It's potential trouble, though perhaps not insurmountable. On a more practical level, other paladins could certainly be embarassed or frustrated if the goblin is found out, if suddenly everyone worries that their local paladin is actually a goblin.

The big question around these sorts of PCs is whether it is worth the trouble. You point out the dichotomies to the player, talk about how it affects the character and the rest of the party, and then about how the world will react. And if he still wants to play the only LG goblin paladin in the world, and you have assurances this won't be to the detriment of other players, then he can go for it.

The reason I'm a little confused is that I said as much, albeit in much less detail, in my first post:


I have no houserules to enforce these tropes. I have no wizard or sorcerer dwarf NPCs, and no half-orc paladins or sorcerers, e.g. If a player makes one, it'll be the only one in the world, and depending on the exact circumstances, may get some social effects to highlight that.