Race/Class Restrictions

[AtlanteanTroll]

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

[AtopTheMountain]

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

[oxybe]

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

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

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

[Lord Vampyre]

Race/Class restrictions make a certain amount of sense depending on the world. It can add flavor to your setting, if you allow it to.

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

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

[HunterOfJello]

I think that odd race/class combinations make for more interesting characters.

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

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

~

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

[Savannah]

Bad idea. If you want players to mainly stick to certain race/class combinations, you could give bonuses for using a given race's favored class(es) instead.

[Kurald Galain]

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

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

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

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

(examples heavily subject to personal opinion, of course)

[Zaydos]

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

[lesser_minion]

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

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

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

[Draz74]

Dang I'd always thought that elves could be fighter/magic-user/thieves in 2e.

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

[WarKitty]

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

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

[Urpriest]

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

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

[Xefas]

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

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

[Zaydos]

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

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

Edit: Yes they exist (2 of them).

[WarKitty]

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

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

[Xefas]

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

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

[Dusk Eclipse]

I think that odd race/class combinations make for more interesting characters.

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

<snip>.

Talenta Halflings dissagree with you

Spoiler

Show

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

[Zaq]

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

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

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

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

[Thurbane]

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

It really just depends on your POV.

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

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

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

[AslanCross]

Bad idea. If you want players to mainly stick to certain race/class combinations, you could give bonuses for using a given race's favored class(es) instead.

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

[Zaydos]

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

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

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

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

[Ravens_cry]

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

[Iferus]

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

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

[Halaster]

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

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

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

[Kurald Galain]

Dang I'd always thought that elves could be fighter/magic-user/thieves in 2e.

Quite possibly; I was quoting that from memory. The example still stands, in that many races arbitrarily could only choose certain multiclass combos and not others.

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

[Greenish]

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

I prefer game worlds where flavour comes from flavour, not mechanics. Just because dwarves could learn magic doesn't mean they do, if their society views magic with distrust, and elfs having the gifts to become sneaks doesn't mean that'd be the norm, for their society could well place the highest value on honour and openness.

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

[Malbordeus]

restricting it outright might not work, but there could be good social economic or cultural reasons why certain races cant get the training.

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

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

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

:P
-chris

[Halaster]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tyrmatt]

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

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

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

[hamishspence]

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

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