You know what I really hate?

[AstralFire]

Racial prerequisite classes and feats that don't actually require anything the race can do innately, it's just "we only teach this to elves/dwarves." I can understand something being themed around a race, sure, that's cool and flavorful. But to bar everything bugs me.

(This topic could also be called "Why I never get to take the Dwarven Defender or Arcane Archer and yes I know how horribly unoptimal they are." Whenever I play Dwarves, I'm not in the mood for a DD.)

[Stycotl]

most new prc descriptions give 'adaptation' info toward the end. so you can make a human defender with similar, but unique fluff, and the same (or as similar as you want them to be) mechanics.

[Chronos]

Dwarven Defender at least makes some sense, because the only time it's useful is when fighting in narrow tunnels, and the only PHB race who live in tunnels are the dwarves.

Arcane Archer, though, I'm just not seeing it.

[AstralFire]

most new prc descriptions give 'adaptation' info toward the end. so you can make a human defender with similar, but unique fluff, and the same (or as similar as you want them to be) mechanics.

Oh, I know. But I've had some DMs who just will not allow that sort of thing, too. Some who will (*hugs his Kobold Outrider*) but others who won't.

Dwarven Defender at least makes some sense, because the only time it's useful is when fighting in narrow tunnels, and the only PHB race who live in tunnels are the dwarves.

Arcane Archer, though, I'm just not seeing it.

It's that Elves = Magic and Forest thing. Thematically, it makes sense, but yeah.

[Andras]

Dwarven Defender at least makes some sense, because the only time it's useful is when fighting in narrow tunnels, and the only PHB race who live in tunnels are the dwarves.

Arcane Archer, though, I'm just not seeing it.

Elves have free proficiency in bows and wizard as their favored class. The concept behind the arcane archer is magic combined with bow-work - two things they're slightly better at, together.

Not an amazing reason (and not an amazing PrC either), but there it is.

Edit: beaten.

[Crow]

Maybe it's one of those things where they don't teach "the way" to "outsiders"?

[AstralFire]

Maybe it's one of those things where they don't teach "the way" to "outsiders"?

Yeah, but then that's a fluff restriction on crunch which might not even be applicable to a different setting.

I just have an axe to grind about flavor restrictions that don't feel that intricately tied to the class. Blood Magus' requirement that you have died? Sure. "You must be this short to shoot a flaming arrow?" Meh.

(Woah I'm a Barbarian now.)

[FMArthur]

Racial favored classes piss me off even more. There doesn't seem to be any point to it except to restrict players more than necessary. It's not restricting them from being too powerful or anything, it's just limiting player freedom. I think it's just a throwback to the days when races and classes weren't separate.

[Lemur]

Yeah, but then that's a fluff restriction on crunch which might not even be applicable to a different setting.

I just have an axe to grind about flavor restrictions that don't feel that intricately tied to the class. Blood Magus' requirement that you have died? Sure. "You must be this short to shoot a flaming arrow?" Meh.

(Woah I'm a Barbarian now.)

So you're capable of crafting your own settings, but unable to change fluff prerequisites on existing prestige classes?

[Knaight]

Maybe it's one of those things where they don't teach "the way" to "outsiders"?

On the otherhand, if an outsider were to observe multiple arcane archers being taught without the elves knowing, they could probably pick it up. Weak argument at best. Also disguise checks.

[Crow]

On the otherhand, if an outsider were to observe multiple arcane archers being taught without the elves knowing, they could probably pick it up. Weak argument at best. Also disguise checks.

Yeah and it also doesn't take into account the guys who are going to teach it to outsiders anyways (there's always some of those).

[monty]

Tell that to my changeling Shadowcraft Mage. It's only a matter of time before even he can't tell who he is.

[Tormsskull]

Racial favored classes piss me off even more. There doesn't seem to be any point to it except to restrict players more than necessary. It's not restricting them from being too powerful or anything, it's just limiting player freedom. I think it's just a throwback to the days when races and classes weren't separate.

I think it is done more to try and reinforce the theme or fluff of the setting. If you want a race to be perceived as a certain way, a racial prestige class that exemplifies the specific attributes you want to showcase would work well.

If every race can take that prestige class, then it gets really watered down, and becomes generic.

In addition (I'm not saying you are suggesting or acting this FYI), most of the time I hear people complain about this type of a restriction it comes down to "But I want that ability! I want it, I want it!" Which gives me a real bad knee-jerk reaction.

[Covered In Bees]

I think it is done more to try and reinforce the theme or fluff of the setting. If you want a race to be perceived as a certain way, a racial prestige class that exemplifies the specific attributes you want to showcase would work well.

This is NOT OKAY for non-setting-specific books like, oh, the generic Player's Handbook.

If every race can take that prestige class, then it gets really watered down, and becomes generic.

On the upside, people who like it can play it.

In addition (I'm not saying you are suggesting or acting this FYI), most of the time I hear people complain about this type of a restriction it comes down to "But I want that ability! I want it, I want it!" Which gives me a real bad knee-jerk reaction.

Oh, no! Players wanting something! Clearly the system should stop them?

[Crow]

This is NOT OKAY for non-setting-specific books like, oh, the generic Player's Handbook.

Well the Prestige Classes in the DMG were originally in there as examples. They weren't actually in the realm of the player (hence they were in the DMG and not the PHB) The DMG actually encouraged the DM to come up with his own PrC's for their campaigns.

On the upside, people who like it can play it.

I can see the case for alignment restrictions in most cases, but I agree that race restrictions are a bit silly.

Oh, no! Players wanting something! Clearly the system should stop them?

The roots of this conversation go back to the days when the magic items were the DM's realm. Wealth by level became an entitlement rather than a game balance mechanic. I want it, I want it, I want it. In either case, there are times when giving the players everything they want may not be good for the game. I remember a while back some guy wanted to pick up the Assassin PrC for his Paladin/Rogue for whatever reason. Optimization issues aside, the paragon of virtue and justice who kills people for money is probably something the DM should step in and head off.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

I remember a while back some guy wanted to pick up the Assassin PrC for his Paladin/Rogue for whatever reason. Optimization issues aside, the paragon of virtue and justice who kills people for money is probably something the DM should step in and head off.

See, I could easily see that as "The noble warrior who kills those who deserve nothing but death, and is shunned by his peers because he doesn't give the enemies a chance, but is only in it to save lives, and his god apparently approves". See what happens when you eliminate the standard fluff?

[AstralFire]

So you're capable of crafting your own settings, but unable to change fluff prerequisites on existing prestige classes?

I'm not always the DM, and I often can only get away with that by getting one of the PCs less jaded towards the concept doing it. They tend to prefer ruling everything 'by-the-book'. And to speak more generally, I am usually the DM and I see player's fencing off options for themselves sometimes because they assume such things are barred to them. I dislike restricting people when unnecessary.

I think it is done more to try and reinforce the theme or fluff of the setting. If you want a race to be perceived as a certain way, a racial prestige class that exemplifies the specific attributes you want to showcase would work well.

If every race can take that prestige class, then it gets really watered down, and becomes generic.

That's fine on a per-setting restriction. It bugs me when I see it in a non-campaign specific environment. I am a gigantic proponent of not allowing things if it breaks a campaign's flavor.

I remember a while back some guy wanted to pick up the Assassin PrC for his Paladin/Rogue for whatever reason. Optimization issues aside, the paragon of virtue and justice who kills people for money is probably something the DM should step in and head off.

Shadowbane Inquisitor?

[Crow]

Shadowbane Inquisitor?

...and that's probably why that class exists.

[Covered In Bees]

Well the Prestige Classes in the DMG were originally in there as examples. They weren't actually in the realm of the player (hence they were in the DMG and not the PHB) The DMG actually encouraged the DM to come up with his own PrC's for their campaigns.

This was not a particularly good model. They didn't even have guidelines for doing so, much less rules (and the existing PrCs are all over the place, abilities- and balance-wise).

I can see the case for alignment restrictions in most cases, but I agree that race restrictions are a bit silly.

The "Avenger" on the WotC site (the Assassin with no changes, refluffed to be non-lawful rather than evil) shows pretty well that alignment restrictions are pretty silly too.

The roots of this conversation go back to the days when the magic items were the DM's realm. Wealth by level became an entitlement rather than a game balance mechanic. I want it, I want it, I want it. In either case, there are times when giving the players everything they want may not be good for the game. I remember a while back some guy wanted to pick up the Assassin PrC for his Paladin/Rogue for whatever reason. Optimization issues aside, the paragon of virtue and justice who kills people for money is probably something the DM should step in and head off.

Then maybe the Assassin PrC doesn't represent him killing people for money.

I play Spirit of the Century, in which spending a fate point lets a player narrate something about the scene. I've played Wushu, where the dice are for conflict resolution--you can describe yourself casually dodging the BBEG's attacks and stabbing him through the leg, as long as doing so doesn't win you the conflict the dice said you lost (the conflict not necessarily being "who beats whom in a fight").
As a result, I'm really unimpressed with systems and people that sneer at players, "you're not responsible enough to pick your own magic items/prestige classes/whatever".

[Crow]

Then maybe the Assassin PrC doesn't represent him killing people for money.

The one as written in the DMG quite obviously assumes he isn't doing it for wholesome reasons, which is why the Avenger was released.

As a result, I'm really unimpressed with systems and people that sneer at players, "you're not responsible enough to pick your own magic items/prestige classes/whatever".

A quick run down to the WotC forums back in 3.x days clearly showed that yes, some players are not.

[Neon Knight]

The one as written in the DMG quite obviously assumes he isn't doing it for wholesome reasons, which is why the Avenger was released.

I thought that was an April Fool's joke.

A quick run down to the WotC forums back in 3.x days clearly showed that yes, some players are not.

But does that give them permission to penalize all players because some cannot handle it?

And if you're referring to the Char Op boards, you just lost some respect from me. That stuff was nearly 100% theoretical, and not intended for actual gameplay.

[Crow]

I thought that was an April Fool's joke.

I think it was, but I don't remember. Cases like the one I mentioned were coming up all the time on their boards.

But does that give them permission to penalize all players because some cannot handle it?

No, but it hasn't stopped them from doing it. Just look at the sometimes heavy-handed mechanics they've been using lately to stifle player abuse. Hell, look at the latest rituals supplement.

And if you're referring to the Char Op boards, you just lost some respect from me. That stuff was nearly 100% theoretical, and not intended for actual gameplay.

No, I was referring the DMing Help section. The CharOp boards are more about finding poorly-worded rules and distorting and abusing them .

[Falrin]

It's Restricting Vs Fluff.

Some DM's spend amazing amounts of money to get their hands on any setting related sources. In return they get a preset world with feats & PrC's to match it.
Being a Spellguard of Silverymoon is so setting specific it's allowed.

In the more Generic ground we have PrC's like the Eldritch Knight and the Archmage. These are very broad PrCs. You want to be a diviner wizard taking Archmage? No problem.

Then we have the problemchilds: Assassin, Dwarven Defender, Radiant server of Pelor. They all restrict players choices to alignment, race or god. But why? Yes, I like the fluff on some of these (say radiant server), but in general I like my PrC broader, then the DM slaps on some fluff and in you go.

I as a DM tend to be very lenient in this. Your playing a wizard specializing in Cloud Spells, then one day you will run into a wandering Druid willing to teach you the secrets of this forgotten cloudcult. Enter a Very Fluff specific PrC. I love to give players a complete specialized, specific class/ability/feat to complete their style, but in a book I like to see the broad, generic PrC’s that I can adapt in any way.

[Jade_Tarem]

As a result, I'm really unimpressed with systems and people that sneer at players, "you're not responsible enough to pick your own magic items/prestige classes/whatever".

They're, um, not. Not usually. My players would be miserable if I gave them everything they wanted. It's like telling a five year old that yes, it's ok to play with fire as long as he thinks it would look cool - it would be flashy and amusing for about five seconds before everything burned to the ground.

Also, I'm really unimpressed with systems and people that sneer at players, "we are so much better than you. Hey! Hey! Stop having fun with your inferior system, dammit!"

[Neon Knight]

No, but it hasn't stopped them from doing it. Just look at the sometimes heavy-handed mechanics they've been using lately to stifle player abuse. Hell, look at the latest rituals supplement.



No, I was referring the DMing Help section. The CharOp boards are more about finding poorly-worded rules and distorting and abusing them .

I stand corrected. Touche.

Although I'm not too familiar with the tales from the DM help section. Are there any particular horror stories, or was it more of a general phenomenon?

[Covered In Bees]

The one as written in the DMG quite obviously assumes he isn't doing it for wholesome reasons, which is why the Avenger was released.

And it's good to stick with the printed fluff no matter what... why?

A quick run down to the WotC forums back in 3.x days clearly showed that yes, some players are not.

And I'm sure these players can be perfectly trusted with those prestige classes that *aren't* restricted by alignment, right?

PROTIP: alignment/race restrictions are not a balancing factor.

They're, um, not. Not usually. My players would be miserable if I gave them everything they wanted. It's like telling a five year old that yes, it's ok to play with fire as long as he thinks it would look cool - it would be flashy and amusing for about five seconds before everything burned to the ground.

And yet, those SotC and Wushu games managed to work out fine.

I think you should clarify how refluffing PrCs or disregarding alignment restrictions is "like telling a five year old that, yes, it's ok to play with fire".

Also, I'm really unimpressed with systems and people that sneer at players, "we are so much better than you. Hey! Hey! Stop having fun with your inferior system, dammit!"

That's nice. I'm not doing anything of the sort.

[Chronos]

Just curious... If racial favored classes are too "fluffy" for the generic PHB, what about, say, the dwarvish bonus to Constitution? What if I want to run a homebrewed setting where the dwarves are fragile albinos, stunted from their long absence from sunlight? OK, so in my homebrewed setting, then, dwarves get a Con penalty... Does that mean that the PHB shouldn't assign racial ability score modifiers?

[monty]

Just curious... If racial favored classes are too "fluffy" for the generic PHB, what about, say, the dwarvish bonus to Constitution? What if I want to run a homebrewed setting where the dwarves are fragile albinos, stunted from their long absence from sunlight? OK, so in my homebrewed setting, then, dwarves get a Con penalty... Does that mean that the PHB shouldn't assign racial ability score modifiers?

A lot of the racial modifiers don't make sense anyway. I mean, -2 Charisma for goblins? Come on. They're much prettier than that.

[AstralFire]

Just curious... If racial favored classes are too "fluffy" for the generic PHB, what about, say, the dwarvish bonus to Constitution? What if I want to run a homebrewed setting where the dwarves are fragile albinos, stunted from their long absence from sunlight? OK, so in my homebrewed setting, then, dwarves get a Con penalty... Does that mean that the PHB shouldn't assign racial ability score modifiers?

That's entirely different, I would say. Races are taken as a given, a basis with which to work from. You have to begin the anchoring of fluff to mechanics somewhere, and that's a fine place to do it. If a PrC requires and logically uses, say, Darkvision and a stability bonus and a high Con, it's pretty obviously tilted towards dwarves. But if it makes use of them in a way that makes sense, sure, I can see it. It's not a seemingly arbitrary qualifier. Do you get what I am saying?

[Vexxation]

A lot of the racial modifiers don't make sense anyway. I mean, -2 Charisma for goblins? Come on. They're much prettier than that.

Right, but they also either lack the will to stand up for themselves, are brutish, or feel like outcasts.