Optional Rule: Race Restriction

Post/Author/DateTimePost
#1

decivre

Apr 07, 2007 10:25:36
I'm trying to throw race restrictions (and character tree, but I have that worked out) into the game, and while it isn't hard to throw most of the races that were in Athas.org's rules into the game with their given restrictions, I'm trying to figure what to do with the barbarian class for restrictions... I could just go with either fighter or gladiator restrictions that were in the expanded campaign setting book from 2nd ed (oh, by the way, I'm removing level restrictions from the combinations that had them, just restricting the classes as they were back then) or giving them different restrictions, which I have yet to figure out and was wondering if anyone had a good idea for that.
Another option I was thinking of doing instead, that would allow for more of the versatility that is normally allowed in a d20 system, would be to only restrict magic in these ways, leaving the rest of the classes alone (since anyone can effectively do any job, just some better than others, with the exception of magic). The main reason I'm doing these restrictions is that the section on races made my teeth grind when I read the part about halfling preservers, something that couldn't have possibly existed in the original rules, and I don't think that the magical restrictions should be overlooked, as the fact that humans and elves are the only ones capable of defiler magic was a big point to me. If anyone can give me suggestions on this, it would be great.
Oh, and if anyone is interested in my character tree system for 3.5 (which is actually a very simple system), I can post it if you'd like.
#2

j0lt

Apr 07, 2007 10:53:24
IMO, race/class restrictions are one of the bad points of 2e. (don't even start me on THAC0!)
If anything, there should be fewer restrictions! (XP penalties for multi-classing, for example)
Another thing that would bring a breath of fresh air to D&D in general is adapting d20 Modern's Starting Occupation system to provide a little more skill versatility.
#3

ruhl-than_sage

Apr 07, 2007 19:32:58
I don't think there is any race that should be restricted from Barbarian.
#4

Zardnaar

Apr 08, 2007 3:58:19
I don't think there is any race that should be restricted from Barbarian.

Its an odd choice to say the least for a few races though. Pyreen for example. Racial restrictions are kinda stupid unless magic or psionics explans why certain races can't do certain things. Its reasonable for example a race with permanent anti magic effects can't use magic for example.
#5

korvar

Apr 08, 2007 6:28:00
I'm not sure I'd go with restrictions as such - you should be able to be a Pyreen Barbarian should you realy want to, but certain combinations should be so rare that a really good back-story is required, as well as a realisation that NPCs will act oddly around that character.

It adds a lot of flavour to a race if they don't do certain classes. Elves never being Clerics (if I recall correctly from the 2E days) tells you a lot about Elves, who they are and how they think. Dwarves never being Magic-Users tells you things about Dwarves and their relationship to magic.

I think you lose a lot of that in the "everyone can be everything" 3E world.
#6

j0lt

Apr 08, 2007 7:16:22
That's probably why they made the Favored Classes.
I agree with the odd combos requiring a good backstory. (usually those are the characters that end up being remembered anyways)
#7

ruhl-than_sage

Apr 09, 2007 18:50:10
Elves never being Clerics (if I recall correctly from the 2E days) tells you a lot about Elves, who they are and how they think. Dwarves never being Magic-Users tells you things about Dwarves and their relationship to magic.

Elves could definately be Clerics, in fact there are a number of elven Cleric PrCs. They couldn't be Druids, and for obvious reasons. It's a ban that I would probably continue to enforce if anyone every wanted to play one, though I think they could be disuaded with a simple explaination of why it doesn't make sense.
#8

korvar

Apr 09, 2007 20:08:50
I speak mainly of the days before PrC's
#9

j0lt

Apr 09, 2007 21:44:43
Elves could definately be Clerics, in fact there are a number of elven Cleric PrCs. They couldn't be Druids, and for obvious reasons. It's a ban that I would probably continue to enforce if anyone every wanted to play one, though I think they could be disuaded with a simple explaination of why it doesn't make sense.

Could you give me said explanation? :p
(wasn't planning on an Elf, Druid, I'd just like to get your take on the subject)
#10

ruhl-than_sage

Apr 10, 2007 13:58:51
I speak mainly of the days before PrC's

I know, they were called kits back then ;) , those kits have since been converted into PrCs.
#11

ruhl-than_sage

Apr 10, 2007 14:01:39
Could you give me said explanation? :p
(wasn't planning on an Elf, Druid, I'd just like to get your take on the subject)

An elf lives in the Now, moment to moment and is forever running from one place to another. The Spirit of the Land requires a loyal dependable follower to become a Druid, someone who is willing to forever root their heart and soul in one location, something an Elf cannot do, without breaking with their very nature.
#12

j0lt

Apr 10, 2007 21:01:32
I was thinking it was something along those lines, thanx!
#13

Zardnaar

Apr 11, 2007 17:04:00
In 2nd ed they cahnged the Druid class for Darksun more or less making them stay in one place didn't they? In 3rd ed I think an elf would make a great wandering defender of nature.
#14

j0lt

Apr 11, 2007 22:30:37
Possibly. I've been wanting to make a dwarven druid whose grove was destroyed by a defiling necromancer, and he's decided to hunt down and finish off all the undead on Athas.
#15

ruhl-than_sage

Apr 15, 2007 10:38:34
In 2nd ed they cahnged the Druid class for Darksun more or less making them stay in one place didn't they? In 3rd ed I think an elf would make a great wandering defender of nature.

Sure, you could work it with the reinterpretation. Personally I don't like implications of the unhinged 3rd ed Druid. It seems to pretty much throw the concept of the Spirit of the Land out the window.
#16

j0lt

Apr 15, 2007 10:41:32
Sure, you could work it with the reinterpretation. Personally I don't like implications of the unhinged 3rd ed Druid. It seems to pretty much throw the concept of the Spirit of the Land out the window.

Depends on the player's actions, IMO. If they go around completely ignoring the land, then yeah, I think that could be a problem. But what about an Elf Druid who say, planted some seeds or something like that everywhere he killed for example?
#17

ruhl-than_sage

Apr 15, 2007 10:49:43
Depends on the player's actions, IMO. If they go around completely ignoring the land, then yeah, I think that could be a problem. But what about an Elf Druid who say, planted some seeds or something like that everywhere he killed for example?

Athas is supposed to be a scarred planet and the Spirits of the Land are somewhat disjointed and broken apart. Having a druid that isn't tied to a specific spirit of the land disrupts that flavor in my opinion. It gives the sense that the planets spirit is whole and unified in a way that it just shouldn't be given the history of distruction wrought upon it.

Personally with the type of character that you are talking about, I think that's where the Ranger comes in. Too many people forget the Rangers are supposed to be devoted to the land and protectors of it and simply play them as wilderness survival experts who are good at kicking certain types of monsters asses

Besides they draw there power from the spirits of the land as well, but because they haven't devoted themselves to one spirit, they never gain as much power.
#18

j0lt

Apr 15, 2007 22:07:57
Good point. I hadn't thought about the Spirits of the Land being limited in movement/location. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to have to go change my Ranger a bit. :P