Racial Restrictions: Yes or No?

[Schwann145]

Just curious about how far (or not) people go with these.

For example things like the Bladesinger are very specifically restricted to Elves. It is elvish techniques and traditions that are "closely guarded secrets."
Except... they're not. It's not restricted at all. Anyone can be a Bladesinger, no prob.

In that same regard, would you insist that things like Elven Accuracy be restricted to Elves, or can anyone take it? Or Drow High Magic: can anyone get some racial spells or is that limited to Drow, Wood Elves, Gnomes, etc?
Dragon Fear/Dragon Hide? Dragonborn or anyone?

There is supposed to be some restriction to promote individualism and culture and to keep meaningful mechanical distinctions between the species' options, but that tends to get the official "swept under the rug" treatment in favor of an "any character can/should be able to do anything" attitude by the developers.

So where do you draw these lines, or do you not draw them at all?

[Xervous]

Depends on the game. Design intent of 5e leads me to say such features should not be present as the default with the exception of those that are obviously building off existing features of a race. Other games where the rules exist to reinforce and convey lore? Absolutely. Would I enforce the restrictions when running 5e? Absolutely.

[Mastikator]

Racial feats and subclasses with racial restrictions I enforce the rules RAW. Custom lineage counts qualifies for nothing that has a racial restriction. Elven accuracy only goes on elves and half elves. Dragon hide and dragon fear only go on dragonborn (which can be either fizbans or PHB version).
For which races can players choose from, yes I also restrict those (but allow for exceptions if the player can explain how a campaign restricted race is found outside their campaign setting) to the campaign setting we're playing in.

[Catullus64]

I appreciate them when they're there and have no problem holding players to them. I like having bespoke racial options and appreciate where the printed content encourages them. But I can't say they're a high priority when it comes to things I need in published content.

Is it not the case that the racial feats printed in Xanathar's Guide still have their racial prerequisites? I don't remember them being errata'd. Bladesinger changed in the reprint, and Battlerager never got a reprint at all, sadly. I think it'd be wise to include some text in future racially-themed classes to point out how a PC not of that race should work closely with the DM to figure out if and how it is possible for them to use that class.

So I guess you can put me in the 'Yes' column, but it's low on my list of concerns.

[Amnestic]

I will restrict what races people can choose based upon setting. Sometimes I'll restrict classes too, but that's pretty rare.
I make racial feats available for anyone, regardless of race. Ditto for subclasses. "I've got a great great great great great great great great great grandma who was an elf"? Works for me, enjoy your elven accuracy.

[Warder]

Yes to all racial restrictions - classes, subclasses, feats, items, spells, whatever. I think it all serves to make the game more interesting and I am always a little disappointed when the DM loosens restrictions and says "anything goes". Emphasis on a little, though - I have no issues with playing in those kinds of games, but it's definitely not the way I prefer to play.

[Psyren]

For example things like the Bladesinger are very specifically restricted to Elves. It is elvish techniques and traditions that are "closely guarded secrets."

This is false; it specifically says that while Elves originated bladesinging, there are non-elf practitioners now.

As for whether I would enforce such a restriction - in general no, but perhaps if I wanted to restrict my game to a specific time period or insular region.

[Catullus64]

This is false; it specifically says that while Elves originated bladesinging, there are non-elf practitioners now.

As for whether I would enforce such a restriction - in general no, but perhaps if I wanted to restrict my game to a specific time period or insular region.

In Tasha's Cauldron of Everything it says that. In the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide where the subclass made its debut it's more specific that in the setting, the secrets are closely guarded, and does actually articulate the racial requirement. It has been both things at different times, and one doesn't formally supersede the other.

Not a bad shift, honestly. I prefer it as a racial-exclusive class, but that makes far more sense in a setting book than in a book purporting to offer more general options in setting-varied campaigns. I think more content that is bespoke to a setting and doesn't have to worry about usability and balance in other settings would be a good thing, it's why I liked all the UA Dragonlance options they put out recently.

[MoiMagnus]

Mostly "No", with a few exceptions.

Racial feats can be ok. For example, "Dragon Hide" is thematic enough to be a dragonborn-only feat. Same for Dragon Fear which on top of a thematic interaction, has a mechanic interaction as it relies on your dragon breath uses. Elven Accuracy is a bad example, it doesn't interact in any ways mechanically or thematically with you being an elf.

For subclasses, the bar is IMO even higher. That's some significant content to gate behind a race, so it's better be fundamentally linked to the race in every single way possible. Again about the dragonborn, I'd be fine about a subclass dedicated to mastering your Breath. And the Bladesinger is again a bad example, though to be fair there is not much in the Elf race to build a subclass out of it.

[Bovine Colonel]

IMO racial feat restrictions are fine, but subclass restrictions should be part of the setting and determined by the DM rather than part of the game system. The only reasons ever given for racial restrictions are lore-based rather than mechanics-based, which means they're inherently setting-dependent. For feats that's not a problem, since they don't require much investment and are more an addendum to a racial choice than a whole character concept, but for subclasses, well, I'd rather not have the published material tell me who should have access to which professions in my setting.

[Psyren]

In Tasha's Cauldron of Everything it says that. In the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide where the subclass made its debut it's more specific that in the setting, the secrets are closely guarded, and does actually articulate the racial requirement. It has been both things at different times, and one doesn't formally supersede the other.

Tasha's doesn't actually have to supersede SCAG here (though my view is that it definitely does, by dint of being printed half a decade later.) For starters, SCAG is specific to Faerun whereas Tasha's is universal, so at best you'd be able to claim that the restriction on Bladesinging for elves only applies to Forgotten Realms games, while the practice became more widespread everywhere else. And for two, Tasha's applies to Faerun too, so the line about it only having originated with elves and then branching out could just as easily apply there too.


Not a bad shift, honestly. I prefer it as a racial-exclusive class, but that makes far more sense in a setting book than in a book purporting to offer more general options in setting-varied campaigns. I think more content that is bespoke to a setting and doesn't have to worry about usability and balance in other settings would be a good thing, it's why I liked all the UA Dragonlance options they put out recently.

I'm glad you mentioned that UA, as the subclass introduced there (Lunar Sorcerer) is also intended to be used outside of its "home setting"; they explicitly provide guidance on how to incorporate it into FR and Eberron games.

[JLandan]

Restrictions for racial feats... Yes. The thematic nature of racial feats precludes other races. One caveat, if a player begged and whined and came up with an intelligent or eloquent reason, and brought me a sandwich, I might allow a one-time exception.

Restrictions for subclasses... No. I play all classes are open to all races and all races are open to all classes. If some organization or school is so secretive, no outsider can learn its secrets, then no PC can learn them. Anyway, that's how I'd rule.

[Catullus64]

Frankly, I think it'd be pretty rad if they tried making subclasses more specifically designed to hook directly into the features granted by a specific race, while restricting it thusly.

I would even be down for entire race-as-class options, with subraces reimagined as subclasses. But that one's never happening, both because people would throw a fit, and because base classes are just a lot harder to design and fit into the established design paradigm than subclasses.

[JNAProductions]

For 5E? Nah.

For another game, that was much more closely tied to a setting? Sure.

[diplomancer]

Racial restrictions on feats and subclasses only make sense if they build upon already existing racial features. So far no such subclass has been published yet. On the racial feats, some of them build on Racial features, and thus should definitely be restricted, and others don't, so there's no real reason to restrict them. The worst offender here is Elven Accuracy, which is a powerful feat, desired on many builds, but that doesn't develop on any Elven Racial trait, which means that, if a player wants that Feat, their Racial choice gets restricted for no good reason.

[Naanomi]

I think that feats and subclasses are a good place (the only place?) To explore development of unusual racial traits. A changeling focused in specialized combat shapeshifting, a Warforged with heavier armor plating than the norm... It has to be either feats, subclasses, or refluff (probably of feats or subclasses)

[Willie the Duck]

I don't mind secret orders with special benefits or the like the be spread throughout a game world, I just generally prefer that it is specific to my game world. This is where D&D's trying to have it both ways about being a generic fantasy system and in having an implied inherent world come into conflict. I like what they did with opening up bladesinger, but I wish that at the same time they had brought in more discussion about DMs making world-specific limitations in order to cultivate a specific feel to one's setting.

[Damon_Tor]

I like racial feats, if only because I don't care for the trend toward racial homogeny D&D has been on for almost two years now. There are some races where access to racial feats are now the only reason to ever take them.

Racial subclasses are an inefficient business practice. You're releasing pages upon pages of content while reducing the number of people who might be interested in that content for no really good reason. The same is true for fears to an extent, but feats get a pass because they're just a few sentences, and you could publish one feat for every race in the same amount of space you use to print a subclass.

[Anonymouswizard]

Honestly I'd add racial restrictions if it fits the setting (which is very rarely). Mostly I don't care enough to enforce it, and the player likely cares about their Merfolk Battlerager more than I do.

Lore is mutable even in published settings. Blue Rose says that Rhy-cats look like giant Siamese cats, but in my games they can have any colouration the player wants. So even if official Forgotten Realms lore says that only halflings have discovered the esoteric secrets of Edible Arcana you're still free to play a Goliath Wizard with the Kitchen Magic subclass in your game.

There's also the unrealised potential of restrictions as balancing mechanisms, an unusually powerful option could be balanced up limiting it to races (or classes) that synergise poorly. This can be helpful in games where classes are primarily designed to fulfil one role but works very well for another bar some missing abilities, grant an option that refocuses the character on the new area in exchange for not improving the class's core role as much (the 'swordmage' and 'swashbuckler rogue' being the classic examples). I'd honestly fully support Fighter/Barbarian restricted Feats that mostly focused on skills, as well as Rogue-specific feats that bumped front-line survivability.

[Psyren]

Racial subclasses are an inefficient business practice. You're releasing pages upon pages of content while reducing the number of people who might be interested in that content for no really good reason. The same is true for fears to an extent, but feats get a pass because they're just a few sentences, and you could publish one feat for every race in the same amount of space you use to print a subclass.

Agreed. Feats are easier to design and test as well.


I think that feats and subclasses are a good place (the only place?) To explore development of unusual racial traits. A changeling focused in specialized combat shapeshifting, a Warforged with heavier armor plating than the norm... It has to be either feats, subclasses, or refluff (probably of feats or subclasses)

I think an interesting route for "racial subclasses" would be to take an existing subclass and either tweak or swap out one or two of the features. For example, you could make a "Warforged Juggernaut" by saying "this is the Berserker Barbarian, but you can never get more than two levels of Exhaustion from its Frenzy feature."

[loki_ragnarock]

From my perspective, such should be setting dependent. But most of the settings I run with have PCs as exceptional people who constantly break or redefine the assumptions of the setting; they are protagonists, and if an idea is in place in the setting the expectation is that the protagonist will break that rule over their knee like so.

Someone articulated that Dragon Hide is probably good and Elven Accuracy is probably bad. I generally agree with that.

[JackPhoenix]

Specific details depends on the campaign, but yes, absolutely support racial restrictions on some things.

[Guy Lombard-O]

Yes.

Personally, I favor anything that helps define and differentiate the races. I'd like to see different racial maximum ability scores for each race (I think AD&D did this?), with humans able to hit (whatever, 18 or 20) max in any ability as the "flexible" race. Things like 20 Str gnomes really bug me and break my immersion, while also making a character's race seem less important and defining.

But that's probably an idea whose time has come and gone.

[Warder]

Yes.

Personally, I favor anything that helps define and differentiate the races. I'd like to see different racial maximum ability scores for each race (I think AD&D did this?), with humans able to hit (whatever, 18 or 20) max in any ability as the "flexible" race. Things like 20 Str gnomes really bug me and break my immersion, while also making a character's race seem less important and defining.

But that's probably an idea whose time has come and gone.


I'm completely with you, I agree and I wish 5e had been designed with that mindset. We've tried different ways to make racial ability scores more distinct in 5e but the system isn't built well for it, you have to rip out quite a few things to make it work, I think.

As for whether that time has come and gone, eh, it probably has for WotC but there's still a demand for it. Official content won't move that way but official content has been pretty bad & bland lately anyway, so I recommend looking into third party stuff. There's a world of skilled designers out there who more than give WotC's team a run for their money!

[JackPhoenix]

Yes.

Personally, I favor anything that helps define and differentiate the races. I'd like to see different racial maximum ability scores for each race (I think AD&D did this?), with humans able to hit (whatever, 18 or 20) max in any ability as the "flexible" race. Things like 20 Str gnomes really bug me and break my immersion, while also making a character's race seem less important and defining.

But that's probably an idea whose time has come and gone.

Funny you say that. While I'm not running a game or planning to run a game at the moment (finally got to be a player, yay!), I thought about having the +2 ASI from races increase the maximum by the same amount.

[Sigreid]

I've historically been against restrictions, but lately I've been thinking of creating a campaign world where racial gods matter more and there would be restrictions on classes, backgrounds and such. I think it might be interesting at least for a while to lean into racial stereotypes and tropes based on the idea that cultures will be more monolithic if the gods regularly do actually walk among their people.

For this world I would also have no racial cross breeding. A half elf would be either an elf that abandoned the elven god or a human that worshiped him. Half orcs would be orcs that turned their back on the savage ways of their people, or humans that revel in it, etc.

[animorte]

I never impose racial restrictions on classes unless the campaign design specifically calls for it.

That being said, if you choose a typically restricted race/class combination, I expect an explanation from your backstory about how you studied with those people (or individual) in order to acquire something that is so rare. I think this brings a certain amount of depth to the world and brings it to life. Immersion.

[False God]

The line for me is how metropolitan the campaign is. Do the elves mingle freely with the other races? With specific races? With none? The answer to this question determines how well non-elves have access to elven stuff (or any other race's stuff).

[kazaryu]

Just curious about how far (or not) people go with these.

For example things like the Bladesinger are very specifically restricted to Elves. It is elvish techniques and traditions that are "closely guarded secrets."
Except... they're not. It's not restricted at all. Anyone can be a Bladesinger, no prob.

In that same regard, would you insist that things like Elven Accuracy be restricted to Elves, or can anyone take it? Or Drow High Magic: can anyone get some racial spells or is that limited to Drow, Wood Elves, Gnomes, etc?
Dragon Fear/Dragon Hide? Dragonborn or anyone?

There is supposed to be some restriction to promote individualism and culture and to keep meaningful mechanical distinctions between the species' options, but that tends to get the official "swept under the rug" treatment in favor of an "any character can/should be able to do anything" attitude by the developers.

So where do you draw these lines, or do you not draw them at all?

i absoltuely do not restrict class/subclasses based on race, it seems asinine to me that elves are the only race that have an exclusive subclass. i might be more ok with it if it was the norm, but as a special exception? screw that, bring on the dwarven, handaxe wielding, bladesinger.

for feats, it hasn't come up yet. i mean obviously feats like the halflings bountiful luck are inherently tied to halflings (although it wouldn't be difficult to re-write that to make it viable on anyone). But overall i kinda go back and forth. at least they made racial feats for a lot of the basic races. i do wish that they all tended to be on the same overall tier/category. like, elven accuracy isn't easily comparable to prodigy, or fade away. which can lead to power disparity between races.

[Schwann145]

it seems asinine to me that elves are the only race that have an exclusive subclass.
Battlerager is Dwarf-exclusive... Unfortunately it's also hot garbage, so everyone always forgets about it, lol

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't have anything against the principle of racially-locked feats. But only a couple of the existing ones make any kind of sense. Draconic Fear? Yeah. Ties in with your dragon breath and your relationship to dragons (who are known for being fearsome). Elven Accuracy? Hah no. But on the whole, I'd rather make separate subraces that have those as alternate features (ie instead of breath, you get fear or wings).

Classes/subclasses...not so fond. They don't really have a place in my setting, since I'm explicitly trying to avoid the whole "racial monoculture/mono-racial cultures/races of hats" issue.

[Kane0]

Just curious about how far (or not) people go with these.

There is supposed to be some restriction to promote individualism and culture and to keep meaningful mechanical distinctions between the species' options, but that tends to get the official "swept under the rug" treatment in favor of an "any character can/should be able to do anything" attitude by the developers.

So where do you draw these lines, or do you not draw them at all?


Generally speaking I'm not a fan, mostly because I run using my own setting where races are quite different. Racial subclasses, feats, backgrounds, etc are harder to massage in, and I assume the same happens for anyone that only wants to use particular races in their games, or entirely different races that don't map to existing options.

I don't think you should aim to balance races with subclass/feat options, just balance that race against other races and those subclasses/feats against other subclasses/feats. The design intent wasn't to package them together.

So yeah, i'm not against coupling racial nature/culture with mechanics but when you do it needs to be easily applicable to games and tables that don't use those norms, or otherwise unobtrusive to standard play.

[heavyfuel]

Restriction on Classes (like Bladesinger) I'm fine with removing. In the Realms, a human might have had contact with elves that taught him Bladesong, and in other settings, who cares?

Restriction on Feats (like Elven Accuracy) I think are more justified, lest race matter even less than it already does

[Polyphemus]

Racial restrictions in subclasses, I'm not a fan of, though considering that only applies to I believe two officially published subclasses, the Battlerager Barbarian and the (pre-Tasha's, anyway) Bladesinger Wizard, it hasn't really come up too often. I think we've only had one Bladesinger at my table in the ~5 years we've been playing 5e. And we've never had a Battlerager, though that could be more a function of its (in my opinion) rather underwhelming kit than out of any concerns of racial restrictions.

Racial Feats, though, I would be much more strident in enforcing, though I could accept some wiggle room if it really helped out a character thematically. Like if a Human Draconic Sorcerer really wants the Dragon Fear racial feat for whatever reason, well, why not? They already have the scales, so...
But again, it'd have to be a pretty good justification, and it would have to play into the character pretty well. Like I'm not giving your Minotaur Elven Accuracy unless we've had some bizarre story arc where a mad scientist had swapped out her eyes with an elf's, and at that point that's probably the DM and player talking to make the thing make narrative sense to begin with. :P

And then for the few magic items with a racial restriction, yeah, I'll probably enforce those. Though since a fair few of them are restricted to dwarves, I would let a character wearing a Belt of Dwarvenkind get whatever dwarf-specific benefit conferred.

[Psyren]

^ Oh that's a good point - magic items. I absolutely uphold those restrictions - they make sense in-universe, they are less onerous in terms of gameplay, and they allow classes that can overcome them (e.g. Thieves and Artificers) a way to shine.

(Plus the player can embark on a quest to get the item modified, or else find something else to do with it.)

[Joe the Rat]

(Sub)Class restrictions, I can do without, but for a specific game I would entertain them. Make this archetype or that tradition exclusive to a particular school or training or thaumic-active fallout zone for story reasons, and entertain how you got access (the Eldritch Academy is found in the Misty Isles, home of the Mist elves, and the only way to become an Eldritch Knight. Sell me on your Dwarf getting there to learn.)

Feat restrictions I prefer - provided you are selling me on the feat being something unique to the physiological, magical, or possibly cultural aspects of the creature in question. But even then, there's room to wiggle. I offered my Harengon players Elven Accuracy, as it spoke well to their historical and well-documented accuracy with crossbows.

[Dr.Samurai]

I don't mind racial restrictions if it makes sense for some sort of supernatural or physiological ability they have. Like PhoenixPhyre mentioned above, dragonborn feats make sense.

Elven Accuracy does not make sense to me and I don't like locking such an obviously-everyone-will-want-this feat behind a race restriction. (I'm not a fan of the feat in general, but still.)

Same goes for subclasses. If it makes sense that this race would be unique to this due to something innate about them, sure.

But in general the issue is that we're getting new material that is severely restricted, so I don't like that it takes the place of something more general that more concepts can make use of.

Hence my like of splats that focus on a theme like "goblins" or something.

[Derges]

I'm lenient on racial feats if there's some justification. Eg Simic hybrids can start as elves so why not count?

[heavyfuel]

Elven Accuracy does not make sense to me and I don't like locking such an obviously-everyone-will-want-this feat behind a race restriction.

Do people see EA as a must-have for most characters? I've pretty much only seen Rogues and a subset of Warlocks (Hexblades) getting it.

Most characters don't have a reliable source of advantage that can make optimum use of the feat.

[diplomancer]

Do people see EA as a must-have for most characters? I've pretty much only seen Rogues and a subset of Warlocks (Hexblades) getting it.

Most characters don't have a reliable source of advantage that can make optimum use of the feat.

I believe the Sharpshooter Samurai is a popular one. I do think the feat's overrated. But it IS good, and I see no in-game or fictional justification to locking it to Elves only (except for "D&D is an elf game")

[loki_ragnarock]

I believe the Sharpshooter Samurai is a popular one. I do think the feat's overrated. But it IS good, and I see no in-game or fictional justification to locking it to Elves only (except for "D&D is an elf game")

We got snooty elves, forest elves, subterranean elves, glam elves, goth elves, diving elves, flying elves... just so many elves.

So. Many. Elves.

I'm sure I've forgotten most of them.

[MoiMagnus]

Do people see EA as a must-have for most characters? I've pretty much only seen Rogues and a subset of Warlocks (Hexblades) getting it.

Most characters don't have a reliable source of advantage that can make optimum use of the feat.

Given that a fair number of tables since to have "OP familiars", it wouldn't surprise me if those advantages often came from the help action of some pets/invocation/etc of anyone in the team.

[Amnestic]

I dunno what a Trance-centric racial feat might look like but that seems more elfy than extra advantage because...perception proficiency? I guess?

[Schwann145]

IMO racial feat restrictions are fine, but subclass restrictions should be part of the setting and determined by the DM rather than part of the game system. The only reasons ever given for racial restrictions are lore-based rather than mechanics-based, which means they're inherently setting-dependent. For feats that's not a problem, since they don't require much investment and are more an addendum to a racial choice than a whole character concept, but for subclasses, well, I'd rather not have the published material tell me who should have access to which professions in my setting.

Not intending to reply directly to you, Colonel; this statement just sparked a thought. :)

I find it kind of interesting, the idea that feats are somehow more mechanically sounded than subclass when it comes to racial restrictions.
Looking at Elven Accuracy:
"The accuracy of elves is legendary." Well, why is that? There's a racial proficiency with some weapons, but that is based entirely on subrace. Wood and High elves are very good, culturally, with bows and swords, one of which is Str-based (longsword), but the feat doesn't apply to a Longsword, and they're not particularly "racially accurate" with crossbows or slings. Sea elves aren't particularly good with bows or swords but are good with spear, trident, light crossbow, and nets; things better suited to underwater combat but also include Str-based items. Drow are the only ones with "racial weapons" that all benefit from the feat, with Rapiers, Shortswords, and Hand Crossbows.
There's a racial proficiency in Perception, sure, but noticing things and landing attacks are not the same thing, either mechanically or thematically, even if there's a tenuous connection to be made thematically.

But, further, the feat isn't just about an elven superiority of eyesight - it makes you better with every non-Str-based attack. Because elves are inherently superior in not just ranged attacks, but magic as well. Is this magical superiority in their blood, or is it cultural in the same way that their potential weapon proficiencies are cultural?
If their magical superiority is hereditary, then why doesn't it show up in every type of elf? Drow, Eladrin, and High Elves all have innate magic, but Wood Elves don't (unless they take a... racial feat), Sea Elves don't...
And if we break it down even further High Elves have innate Int-based magic, so why would they be "legendary" with Wis or Cha spell accuracy? Drow have Cha-based magic, so why would they be "legendary" with Int or Wis spell accuracy? Etc and so fourth.

This is a very long-winded way of asking: are feats really more mechanically justified? And if they are mechanically justified, why doesn't that justification carry over to the logic used in the creation of the subclass? In other words, maybe Elves can be Bladesingers and Humans can't, not only because they jealously guard their cultural advantages, but also because in order to actually blend magic and swordplay as seamlessly as a Bladesinger does, it requires the inherent magical nature that elves possess and humans, dwarves, orcs, etc don't possess. It could also be that mastering both to a degree that you can combine them in practice requires more training and effort than shorter lifespans have available.
Heck, why can a Dwarf even be a magic user? They have an innate resistance to magic which, once upon a time, made it very difficult for them to practice the Art. Today they still have that innate magic resistance, but for some unexplained reason, it no longer interferes with magic they themselves cast?

[diplomancer]

Not intending to reply directly to you, Colonel; this statement just sparked a thought. :)

I find it kind of interesting, the idea that feats are somehow more mechanically sounded than subclass when it comes to racial restrictions.
Looking at Elven Accuracy:
"The accuracy of elves is legendary." Well, why is that? There's a racial proficiency with some weapons, but that is based entirely on subrace. Wood and High elves are very good, culturally, with bows and swords, one of which is Str-based (longsword), but the feat doesn't apply to a Longsword, and they're not particularly "racially accurate" with crossbows or slings. Sea elves aren't particularly good with bows or swords but are good with spear, trident, light crossbow, and nets; things better suited to underwater combat but also include Str-based items. Drow are the only ones with "racial weapons" that all benefit from the feat, with Rapiers, Shortswords, and Hand Crossbows.
There's a racial proficiency in Perception, sure, but noticing things and landing attacks are not the same thing, either mechanically or thematically, even if there's a tenuous connection to be made thematically.

But, further, the feat isn't just about an elven superiority of eyesight - it makes you better with every non-Str-based attack. Because elves are inherently superior in not just ranged attacks, but magic as well. Is this magical superiority in their blood, or is it cultural in the same way that their potential weapon proficiencies are cultural?
If their magical superiority is hereditary, then why doesn't it show up in every type of elf? Drow, Eladrin, and High Elves all have innate magic, but Wood Elves don't (unless they take a... racial feat), Sea Elves don't...
And if we break it down even further High Elves have innate Int-based magic, so why would they be "legendary" with Wis or Cha spell accuracy? Drow have Cha-based magic, so why would they be "legendary" with Int or Wis spell accuracy? Etc and so fourth.

This is a very long-winded way of asking: are feats really more mechanically justified? And if they are mechanically justified, why doesn't that justification carry over to the logic used in the creation of the subclass? In other words, maybe Elves can be Bladesingers and Humans can't, not only because they jealously guard their cultural advantages, but also because in order to actually blend magic and swordplay as seamlessly as a Bladesinger does, it requires the inherent magical nature that elves possess and humans, dwarves, orcs, etc don't possess. It could also be that mastering both to a degree that you can combine them in practice requires more training and effort than shorter lifespans have available.
Heck, why can a Dwarf even be a magic user? They have an innate resistance to magic which, once upon a time, made it very difficult for them to practice the Art. Today they still have that innate magic resistance, but for some unexplained reason, it no longer interferes with magic they themselves cast?

If I recall correctly, in 2nd Edition, the reason Bladesingers was "elfs only" was justified exactly by their long lifespans; it's a technique that takes decades to learn. But this is an in-game perspective. Looking out from the game, I think only Elves and Half-Elves could even BE fighter/mages to begin with.

[loki_ragnarock]

Today they still have that innate magic resistance, but for some unexplained reason, it no longer interferes with magic they themselves cast?

I'm pretty sure the standard dwarves don't have a feature involving magic resistance. Just poisons.

I could be really sleepy right now, though.

[Schwann145]

I'm pretty sure the standard dwarves don't have a feature involving magic resistance. Just poisons.

I could be really sleepy right now, though.
No, you're right. I was letting every other edition of the game, even PF bleed into 5e. That's my bad. :(
Feel free to swap Yuan-ti, Satyr, or other Magic Resistant races in.

[JackPhoenix]

No, you're right. I was letting every other edition of the game, even PF bleed into 5e. That's my bad. :(
Feel free to swap Yuan-ti, Satyr, or other Magic Resistant races in.

Because there are exactly zero reasons why being resistant to magic would prevent you from using magic?

[KorvinStarmast]

Battlerager is Dwarf-exclusive... Unfortunately it's also hot garbage, so everyone always forgets about it, lol Agreed: Battlerager is hot garbage as presented, but I'd not offer it anyway. I don't like racial restrictions in general.
Blade singer: in my view, it needs to be all races. It's a sub class.
Feats: No racial feats. (So none of Xanathar's are allowed at my table other than Prodigy, which I offer as an option/alternate to Skilled).

[Bobthewizard]

I don't think I would limit any mechanics in player creation for thematic purposes. I like to give the players all the rules and let them come up with what they want. I think limiting mechanical options for thematic reasons limits their creativity and could take away from their enjoyment. If I'm the DM, my goal is to make a game fun for my players. If they want to put dragon fear on a kobold, I don't want to stop them. If the player thinks a dwarf bladesinger sounds cool, let them have their fun. As the DM, I control everything else, so I try to give as much freedom as possible to the players for character creation.

I limit some mechanics because I think they are imbalanced, like not allowing any races with flight. Or sometimes I'll limit themes in a game, like wanting all PCs to be human for the story, but in that case I'd let players refluff any other race they want as human so they can play the mechanics they want. But I wouldn't limit mechanics for theme reasons.

As long as it doesn't break the game mechanically, I let the players do what they want with their characters.

[pwykersotz]

I'm all up for official restrictions. It's easier to ignore them if I want to than to create them if I don't have them. It's good fodder for imagination.

I imagine that people who play Adventurer's League or who rotate to unknown DM's will disagree. But I play home-games with my friends and family. I love springboards for ideas.

[Polyphemus]

Battlerager is Dwarf-exclusive... Unfortunately it's also hot garbage, so everyone always forgets about it, lol

Every so often I get an itch to home-brew up a rewrite of Battlerager that at least makes it on-par with the other Barbarian subclasses, instead of being so underwhelming as to be utterly forgettable. I've never fully finished the thing, but I've never found any other attempt at a rewrite that quite captures the idea I...think they were going for, either.
Mostly I think it should be like the one Barbarian subclass that would get, and could Rage properly in, Heavy armor, though a lot of that might be from experience with the Pathfinder: Kingmaker video game which presented a very interesting heavy-armor-based subclass for the Barbarian that I thought was very suitably (though, per this thread's larger theme, not necessarily exclusively) dwarfy.



If I recall correctly, in 2nd Edition, the reason Bladesingers was "elfs only" was justified exactly by their long lifespans; it's a technique that takes decades to learn. But this is an in-game perspective. Looking out from the game, I think only Elves and Half-Elves could even BE fighter/mages to begin with.

Y'know, this reminds me of a jokey character idea I came up with that plays into this lore, and gets even jokier with the fact that my table doesn't enforce subclass race restrictions anyways:

Your archetypal Gandalf/Merlin-style Human Wizard, y'know, wizened old man with a long beard and probably a pointy hat, but he's only so old because he's spent the last half-century of his limited human lifespan learning the true ways of Bladesinging from the elves, who have 50 years as their standard minimum to be considered a basically competent practitioner of the craft.
...So he's like, a 70-year-old man, but all of that still amounts to only a Level 2 Bladesinger. ;P

And then, because we don't restrict the subclass to begin with, he'd meet another, much younger, higher-leveled Human Bladesinger who just learned it from another Human Bladesinger who didn't really give a damn what the elf standard of Bladsinger education length was, and he's like "Wow, I really got ripped off..."

[Bovine Colonel]

But, further, the feat isn't just about an elven superiority of eyesight - it makes you better with every non-Str-based attack. Because elves are inherently superior in not just ranged attacks, but magic as well. Is this magical superiority in their blood, or is it cultural in the same way that their potential weapon proficiencies are cultural?
If their magical superiority is hereditary, then why doesn't it show up in every type of elf? Drow, Eladrin, and High Elves all have innate magic, but Wood Elves don't (unless they take a... racial feat), Sea Elves don't...
And if we break it down even further High Elves have innate Int-based magic, so why would they be "legendary" with Wis or Cha spell accuracy? Drow have Cha-based magic, so why would they be "legendary" with Int or Wis spell accuracy? Etc and so fourth.

I imagine the idea here is that a ranged spell attack needs to be aimed the same way that a longbow shot does; at the very least they're both called out in the text as "attacks that rely on precision rather than brute force." YMMV on whether your table interprets the two types of attacks as both benefiting from sharp eyesight and hand-eye coordination, but if I'm right about the intent behind the feat then I agree with WOTC's apparent decision to err on the side of permissiveness by including all spell attacks.

I have no idea why the feat works with rapiers, though. When I try to describe a good rapierist, "accuracy" is not the first quality that comes to mind. Maybe that's just a limitation of the D&D ability score system.


This is a very long-winded way of asking: are feats really more mechanically justified? And if they are mechanically justified, why doesn't that justification carry over to the logic used in the creation of the subclass? In other words, maybe Elves can be Bladesingers and Humans can't, not only because they jealously guard their cultural advantages, but also because in order to actually blend magic and swordplay as seamlessly as a Bladesinger does, it requires the inherent magical nature that elves possess and humans, dwarves, orcs, etc don't possess. It could also be that mastering both to a degree that you can combine them in practice requires more training and effort than shorter lifespans have available.
Heck, why can a Dwarf even be a magic user? They have an innate resistance to magic which, once upon a time, made it very difficult for them to practice the Art. Today they still have that innate magic resistance, but for some unexplained reason, it no longer interferes with magic they themselves cast?

My objection (and I know you're not directly replying to me) has more to do with the impact of the restriction. A subclass is a character-defining choice; if a subclass is restricted to a certain race, that restriction eliminates a huge swath of potential character concepts. A feat doesn't typically* form the basis of a new character so much as provide additional options or narrow down the tactical strengths and behaviors of a character that's already partly defined. A character with Elemental Adept (Fire) probably prefers using fire spells, and a character with Fade Away probably doesn't want to be the center of attention in combat the way a character with Dwarven Fortitude does. However, if you deleted these feats from the game and made players choose replacements, chances are it wouldn't force anyone to rewrite the rest of their character sheet.

* Obviously there are exceptions like Moderately Armored and Sentinel, which I would argue is sufficient reason for these feats not to be race-restricted.

[Willie the Duck]

I like racial feats, if only because I don't care for the trend toward racial homogeny D&D has been on for almost two years now. There are some races where access to racial feats are now the only reason to ever take them.
That seems like a problem with the design of the race, more than anything.


Funny you say that. While I'm not running a game or planning to run a game at the moment (finally got to be a player, yay!), I thought about having the +2 ASI from races increase the maximum by the same amount.
If races are going to influence stats, I'd prefer it to be in the minimum and maximum, rather than pluses or minuses. The character creation system is not a demographics emulator. '____ are naturally _____ous, so your average ___ roll becomes an above-average one' seems silly compared to '____ can be more ___ than other races, and thus have a higher cap' seems like a better fit (especially for strength).


If I recall correctly, in 2nd Edition, the reason Bladesingers was "elfs only" was justified exactly by their long lifespans; it's a technique that takes decades to learn. But this is an in-game perspective. Looking out from the game, I think only Elves and Half-Elves could even BE fighter/mages to begin with.
Humans could also be fighter-mages, if you count dual classing. Now that I think about it, I don't recall how dual classing worked with kits.


Your archetypal Gandalf/Merlin-style Human Wizard, y'know, wizened old man with a long beard and probably a pointy hat, but he's only so old because he's spent the last half-century of his limited human lifespan learning the true ways of Bladesinging from the elves, who have 50 years as their standard minimum to be considered a basically competent practitioner of the craft.
...So he's like, a 70-year-old man, but all of that still amounts to only a Level 2 Bladesinger. ;P

:smalltongue:And then, because we don't restrict the subclass to begin with, he'd meet another, much younger, higher-leveled Human Bladesinger who just learned it from another Human Bladesinger who didn't really give a damn what the elf standard of Bladsinger education length was, and he's like "Wow, I really got ripped off..."
And then the elf he studied along side of walks up and finds this out and says, 'wait, it also took me 50 years, when this is supposedly our special knowledge...'
And the human who learned bladesinging in a few years replies, 'right, and how long were you in diapers? How long did it take you to learn your first cantrip? How long...'
'Alright, Alright! Apparently we elves are just really bad at stuff!'

[Amechra]

Y'know, this reminds me of a jokey character idea I came up with that plays into this lore, and gets even jokier with the fact that my table doesn't enforce subclass race restrictions anyways:

Your archetypal Gandalf/Merlin-style Human Wizard, y'know, wizened old man with a long beard and probably a pointy hat, but he's only so old because he's spent the last half-century of his limited human lifespan learning the true ways of Bladesinging from the elves, who have 50 years as their standard minimum to be considered a basically competent practitioner of the craft.
...So he's like, a 70-year-old man, but all of that still amounts to only a Level 2 Bladesinger. ;P

And then, because we don't restrict the subclass to begin with, he'd meet another, much younger, higher-leveled Human Bladesinger who just learned it from another Human Bladesinger who didn't really give a damn what the elf standard of Bladsinger education length was, and he's like "Wow, I really got ripped off..."

Age-based prerequisites, you say...

...

In all seriousness, though, I personally like the idea of racial restrictions when they're actually bound to the mechanics. As people have pointed out, the Bladesinger subclass and the Elven Accuracy feat being elf-only are bad uses of this "tech", while stuff like Dragon Fear actually makes sense (because hey, you need to have a breath weapon before it actually does anything).

If someone built a Fighter subclass that was all about interweaving a breath weapon with your fighting style, I'd expect it to be Dragonborn only... because right now they're the only race that gets a breath weapon.


Looking out from the game, I think only Elves and Half-Elves could even BE fighter/mages to begin with.

A bit off-topic, but man I think WotC picked the wrong form of multiclassing to standardize on in 3e.

"You get two classes, but level as if you were a higher level" is way better, in my opinion, than "build your character with the world's slowest and clunkiest form of pointbuy."

[Willie the Duck]

If someone built a Fighter subclass that was all about interweaving a breath weapon with your fighting style, I'd expect it to be Dragonborn only... because right now they're the only race that gets a breath weapon.
At the same time, Dragon Disciple seemed to be a common favorite Prestige Class in 3e (despite being kinda underperforming), so maybe 'works at slowly turning into a dragonborn-like-thing' is something to which many aspire?


A bit off-topic, but man I think WotC picked the wrong form of multiclassing to standardize on in 3e.
"You get two classes, but level as if you were a higher level" is way better, in my opinion, than "build your character with the world's slowest and clunkiest form of pointbuy."
It certainly causes issues with things like picking up a class just for X, having to balance* level ones of classes based on what a dip into them would mean, not wanting lower-output levels anywhere on the chart, and making just plain going up in 2-3 classes at the same relative rate the least likely thing anyone would do. It seems like either version of AD&D (or 4e's) multiple class systems would make more sense unless you were trying to throw a bone to the 3e system-mastery crowd. Which I think was what they did. They posted an 'optional' flag in front of the thing and said let that crowd have their fun. Personally, I wish that at least those rules would have been in the DMG, hinting that yes there were going to be plenty of games that played without it.
*except when they don't. *cough*hexblade*cough*
**lest someone dip out

[KorvinStarmast]

unless you were trying to throw a bone to the 3e system-mastery crowd. Which I think was what they did. They posted an 'optional' flag in front of the thing and said let that crowd have their fun. Yes, and it gives me a frownie face.

Personally, I wish that at least those rules would have been in the DMG, hinting that yes there were going to be plenty of games that played without it.
*except when they don't. *cough*hexblade*cough*
**lest someone dip out Amen, Deacon!

[Ralanr]

I've found racial restrictions pointless if they are culturally based (like bladesinger) because anyone can learn a culture (unless there are some biological components to that culture that are important. Like say, the ability to fly). But biological reasons for restrictions are something I stand by, since it's hard to justify someone just growing scales for no reason.

But, at the end of the day, you make a reason for it.

This doesn't come up at my tables ever so it's not something I've ever had to deal with.

[Kane0]

Every so often I get an itch to home-brew up a rewrite of Battlerager that at least makes it on-par with the other Barbarian subclasses, instead of being so underwhelming as to be utterly forgettable. I've never fully finished the thing, but I've never found any other attempt at a rewrite that quite captures the idea I...think they were going for, either.
Mostly I think it should be like the one Barbarian subclass that would get, and could Rage properly in, Heavy armor, though a lot of that might be from experience with the Pathfinder: Kingmaker video game which presented a very interesting heavy-armor-based subclass for the Barbarian that I thought was very suitably (though, per this thread's larger theme, not necessarily exclusively) dwarfy.


I usually end up partially rolling it together with Berserker alongside some changes to how the spiked armor works. Wanna start a homebrew thread?

[Polyphemus]

I usually end up partially rolling it together with Berserker alongside some changes to how the spiked armor works. Wanna start a homebrew thread?

Y'know, I might, actually...

Bit of a newbie question, but that potential thread would go over on the Homebrew Design board, and not here on the 5e board, even though at this point I'd be more looking for suggestions and ideas for a subclass revamp, rather than have anything truly finished out and substantive to show?

[Psyren]

Every so often I get an itch to home-brew up a rewrite of Battlerager that at least makes it on-par with the other Barbarian subclasses, instead of being so underwhelming as to be utterly forgettable. I've never fully finished the thing, but I've never found any other attempt at a rewrite that quite captures the idea I...think they were going for, either.

We had a recent thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?641979-Battlerager-thoughts) discussing potential improvements to the subclass you might be interested in. Looks to be juuuust past the necro limit though, so if you want to continue that you'd probably need to make a new one.



Mostly I think it should be like the one Barbarian subclass that would get, and could Rage properly in, Heavy armor, though a lot of that might be from experience with the Pathfinder: Kingmaker video game which presented a very interesting heavy-armor-based subclass for the Barbarian that I thought was very suitably (though, per this thread's larger theme, not necessarily exclusively) dwarfy.

Honestly this is a solid idea. If any race could figure out raging in heavy armor it would be Dwarves, just like they figured out how to sprint in it.

[Kane0]

Y'know, I might, actually...

Bit of a newbie question, but that potential thread would go over on the Homebrew Design board, and not here on the 5e board, even though at this point I'd be more looking for suggestions and ideas for a subclass revamp, rather than have anything truly finished out and substantive to show?

Yeah safer to put it in the homebrew forums even if you arent presenting anything. However with that said you can probably put a thread here for gathering data on the battleragers shortcomings and peoples thoughts in a more generalized sense.

[loki_ragnarock]

So, who here remembers the Birthright Campaign Setting?

Because I don't, anymore, and was only passingly familiar with it back in the day, but wasn't magic totally an Elf only thing or something to that effect? I genuinely can't recall.

[Tanarii]

Racial restrictions yes.
Fixed racial ASIs yes.


Level limits yes.
(Blue because obviously this will never actually happen. Also for them to meaningful in 5e, they'd probably have to be at the AD&D pre-UA levels. So 5-9, with a few outliers of 4 & 10-12)

[Amechra]

So, who here remembers the Birthright Campaign Setting?

Because I don't, anymore, and was only passingly familiar with it back in the day, but wasn't magic totally an Elf only thing or something to that effect? I genuinely can't recall.

If I remember correctly, you had to either be an Elf (because it took forever to study) or you had to be Blooded (because having god-powers let you skip a lot of that studying).

[CapnWildefyr]

Racial restrictions yes.
Fixed racial ASIs yes.


Level limits yes.
(Blue because obviously this will never actually happen. Also for them to meaningful in 5e, they'd probably have to be at the AD&D pre-UA levels. So 5-9, with a few outliers of 4 & 10-12)

I hear ya.

Although, when level limits were a thing, we never played using them. They felt... artificial, just there for power balance.

But that was the point of them, after all.

I think a more generic point, though, is that there is not much point to racial feat restrictions or other restrictions like that when everything is already thrown wide open. Barn door's been open, the horses are long gone. Except when you have a feat based on dragon hide or similar, which you really ought to have to get the feat (being biological-based).

I agree with you (unless I misread something), it's too wide open. I think that paradoxically you need to have some restrictions in order for your choices to be something more character-bound than just a way to do 5hp/round more damage or whatever. In other words, I think having to choose between meaningful choices (I can get innate casting and darkvision as race X vs I can be a paladin) makes a player value the character more and approach playing it with more fervor. Otherwise it's all optimization, what combo gives me the most bonuses?

Wish we also had racial ability limits based on (cough) science (like Str ~16 max for 3 foot tall halflings) or whatever, for ALL of the races and classes. Force a little differentiation.

Or perhaps we just need guidelines for types of cultures/races that can be certain classes/gain certain feats. Like it takes 40 years to learn bladesong, so your human PC is at least 50 or 55 at level 1 (and loses 1pt con and 1 pt str and 1 pt dex), and race X can't be class Y unless in your world X includes large populations of followers of the gods of Love or whatever. I'm not a fan of tables for everything but a listing of why a race would have < Str 20 max or why Int < 20 max could explain defaults and allow DMs to adapt racial restrictions to their own worlds.

[Tanarii]

Although, when level limits were a thing, we never played using them. They felt... artificial, just there for power balance.

But that was the point of them, after all.Technically it wasn't for balance, it was to make players want to choose humans over demihumans. IMXit worked too, even when there was little chance of a game running above the level limits for a demihuman. (You can consider that "balance" in some ways, but the goal wasn't balance, it was unbalance in favor of humanity.)


I agree with you (unless I misread something), it's too wide open.There's other ways they could accomplish the original goals of race & level limit restrictions. Make humans noticeably superior to all other races would certainly do it. (Without feats, since that's an optional rule. They could still have a Vuman that included a feat.)

[Dr.Samurai]

Do people see EA as a must-have for most characters? I've pretty much only seen Rogues and a subset of Warlocks (Hexblades) getting it.

Most characters don't have a reliable source of advantage that can make optimum use of the feat.
I would say that if players want to generate Advantage they can, as a team.

But the online meta is such that each build has to do as much of the heavy lifting as possible to showcase some "check-all-the-boxes" optimization. That's why almost everyone that talks about Rune Knight never even considers handing the runes to their party members, even though their party members can make better use of some of the abilities. That's just not how the online meta thinks.

So if you don't have a class feature that literally gives you Advantage and you go through combats simply hoping you get Advantage somehow, then yes, Elven Accuracy is not a great feat. But that means you and your allies are not imposing conditions on the enemies through spells or combat maneuvers, or getting surprise, or have familiars, etc. Which may be the case, each game is different.

[Amnestic]

That's why almost everyone that talks about Rune Knight never even considers handing the runes to their party members, even though their party members can make better use of some of the abilities. That's just not how the online meta thinks.


I don't think Rune Knights can donate their runes to other party members, RAW.

Contrast wording:

Cloud Rune. This rune emulates the deceptive magic used by some cloud giants. While wearing or carrying an object inscribed with this rune, you have advantage on Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) checks and Charisma (Deception) checks.

Versus, for example, Artificer Infusions which all specify "a creature", "the wearer", or "the wielder" to show that they don't just work for only the Artificer.

If a player wanted to spread their runes around I'd probably say that's okay, but I expect people don't talk about RK doing so usually because the most common reading is that they can't.

[diplomancer]

I don't think Rune Knights can donate their runes to other party members, RAW.

Contrast wording:


Versus, for example, Artificer Infusions which all specify "a creature", "the wearer", or "the wielder" to show that they don't just work for only the Artificer.

If a player wanted to spread their runes around I'd probably say that's okay, but I expect people don't talk about RK doing so usually because the most common reading is that they can't.

I concur with that reading; and doing that could create some fairly powerful nova situations, which I'm not sure is a good idea.

[Dr.Samurai]

The Rune Carver features says: Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch a number of objects equal to the number of runes you know, and you inscribe a different rune onto each of the objects. To be eligible, an object must be a weapon, a suit of armor, a shield, a piece of jewelry, or something else you can wear or hold in a hand. Your rune remains on an object until you finish a long rest, and an object can bear only one of your runes at a time.

It reads to me like you can do this to any object that qualifies, including someone else's weapon, armor, shield, etc.

[MoiMagnus]

The Rune Carver features says: Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch a number of objects equal to the number of runes you know, and you inscribe a different rune onto each of the objects. To be eligible, an object must be a weapon, a suit of armor, a shield, a piece of jewelry, or something else you can wear or hold in a hand. Your rune remains on an object until you finish a long rest, and an object can bear only one of your runes at a time.

It reads to me like you can do this to any object that qualifies, including someone else's weapon, armor, shield, etc.

That's not what they are objecting to. Sure, you can put it on someone else's weapon. But the question is whether or not it has an effect when that someone else use the weapon, or if the weapon only has the magical property when you use it.

In other words: can non-Rune-carvers actually use runic objects, or does it actually require some level of training and magic to trigger the effect of a runic object, and for anyone else those runes are just funny symbols carved on the objects.

[diplomancer]

That's not what they are objecting to. Sure, you can put it on someone else's weapon. But the question is whether or not it has an effect when that someone else use the weapon, or if the weapon only has the magical property when you use it.

In other words: can non-Rune-carvers actually use runic objects, or does it actually require some level of training and magic to trigger the effect of a runic object, and for anyone else those runes are just funny symbols carved on the objects.

Yes; and also this, the very first line in the feature:
"You can use magic runes to enhance your gear".

I'm not saying that it would be illogical or break the game to allow the RK to lend his gear to someone else; but I don't think that this is what the rules intend.

[Dr.Samurai]

That's not what they are objecting to. Sure, you can put it on someone else's weapon. But the question is whether or not it has an effect when that someone else use the weapon, or if the weapon only has the magical property when you use it.

In other words: can non-Rune-carvers actually use runic objects, or does it actually require some level of training and magic to trigger the effect of a runic object, and for anyone else those runes are just funny symbols carved on the objects.
I read that "you" as the person with the Rune. If I have the Cloud Rune on my gear, I am the "you" it is referring to.

That said, I do see now, as Diplomancer pointed out, that it says "You can use magic runes to enhance your gear.", which would suggest the intent is for the fighter's gear. I would say it is a really goofy mechanic that you can only put runes on objects you are either wearing already or intend to wear or hold yourself.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I read that "you" as the person with the Rune. If I have the Cloud Rune on my gear, I am the "you" it is referring to.

That said, I do see now, as Diplomancer pointed out, that it says "You can use magic runes to enhance your gear.", which would suggest the intent is for the fighter's gear. I would say it is a really goofy mechanic that you can only put runes on objects you are either wearing already or intend to wear or hold yourself.

There's the option that you can put runes on anything....but the runes only enhance your gear. You can scribe a rune on a random chunk of rock...it just doesn't do anything unless empowered by being in close proximity to you and you willing it.

Effectively, you can think that the rune itself is just a focus point. It's your will/personal power/talent/whatever, exerted through your ki/aura/whatever at close range that funnels through it and gives it power. Which fits the (slightly different) motif of tattoos as focal points for power--the shape doesn't mean anything by itself. But the shape and materials, when empowered by the one in whose skin it's etched, gives power.

Which is why you can only empower a given rune (limit) times per day. It's a limit on your will; you can scribe the runes anywhere (subject to the interference limits). But actually connecting them to your soul takes a limited resource (of some metaphysical type).

I'll note that I don't 100% hold to this interpretation. But I think it's a useful model, even if it isn't 100% true or canon.

[Dr.Samurai]

For sure. But nothing in the text really says that, to me. The fighter is sticking runes on stuff, and then the runes tell us what they do. For me, the only thing suggesting that someone else can't carry and use a rune is "your gear". I consider that pretty weak, but for the purposes of people holding me accountable for my comment on forum meta, I accept this as a plausible explanation.

But what this suggests to me is that the fighter can put runes on stuff, but some greater force in the universe is checking to make sure it's stuff the fighter is wearing/holding or will wear/hold. Because if we're saying it's "your gear" that means the fighter CAN'T put runes on a rock, etc.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For sure. But nothing in the text really says that, to me. The fighter is sticking runes on stuff, and then the runes tell us what they do. For me, the only thing suggesting that someone else can't carry and use a rune is "your gear". I consider that pretty weak, but for the purposes of people holding me accountable for my comment on forum meta, I accept this as a plausible explanation.

But what this suggests to me is that the fighter can put runes on stuff, but some greater force in the universe is checking to make sure it's stuff the fighter is wearing/holding or will wear/hold. Because if we're saying it's "your gear" that means the fighter CAN'T put runes on a rock, etc.

I dunno, it seems a very reasonable enhancement of what's there. Effectively theorizing on the observed law.

(Hypothetical) Law: A RK can only enhance their own gear.
Observation: Rune Carver says you can put the runes on anything.
Theory: Both are correct. You can put a rune on anything. But unless you're the one using it, that rune cannot be empowered and has no effect.
Possible Supporting Metaphysics: A rune is a physical manifestation of a metaphysical linkage between your aura/ki/whatever and an object. Since your aura doesn't extend infinitely and has a "close" range, unless you're the one using the object, the linkage is inert. The rune itself is not a source of power--you are. The rune is just the channel.

[diplomancer]

I dunno, it seems a very reasonable enhancement of what's there. Effectively theorizing on the observed law.

(Hypothetical) Law: A RK can only enhance their own gear.
Observation: Rune Carver says you can put the runes on anything.
Theory: Both are correct. You can put a rune on anything. But unless you're the one using it, that rune cannot be empowered and has no effect.
Possible Supporting Metaphysics: A rune is a physical manifestation of a metaphysical linkage between your aura/ki/whatever and an object. Since your aura doesn't extend infinitely and has a "close" range, unless you're the one using the object, the linkage is inert. The rune itself is not a source of power--you are. The rune is just the channel.

This also makes sense in that learning to carve runes shouldn't be this amazingly difficult feat that requires several class levels; learning to *use* those rune powers could be such a feat, though.

[Dr.Samurai]

At the risk of repeating myself, the subclass does not speak to "use" of runes. So it's up to us to interpret it as PhoenixPhyre is suggesting. Which is totally fine.

I think runes suggest a different mechanic than "it's your ki and this is a channel for that". This is akin to Thor discovering that the power was inside him all along as opposed to in Mjolnir as we were led to believe the entire time.

[PhoenixPhyre]

At the risk of repeating myself, the subclass does not speak to "use" of runes. So it's up to us to interpret it as PhoenixPhyre is suggesting. Which is totally fine.

I think runes suggest a different mechanic than "it's your ki and this is a channel for that". This is akin to Thor discovering that the power was inside him all along as opposed to in Mjolnir as we were led to believe the entire time.

I don't see that. I see all class powers as "the power was inside <you> all along". Everything, including spell components and artificer infusions (etc) is just a channel for that.