* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : Class restrictions. An article Started at 01-29-06 03:53 PM by weasel fierce Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=577393 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : weasel fierce Date : 01-29-06 03:53 PM Thread Title : Class restrictions. An article http://www.adndcampaigns.com/funnyhats.htm -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 01-29-06 06:58 PM Thanks weasel that's a pretty good read. I've only deviated from the 2e class and race limits twice while playing. As a DM I allowed a friend to play a half -orc fighter/assassin using 2e Complete Thieves Handbook rules for the assassin kit mixed with a dash of 1e. The second deviation was an half-elven paladin of Tyr. I like that site too. Is it pretty new? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : weasel fierce Date : 01-29-06 07:08 PM I havent seen it before, but that doesnt mean its new, of course :) It looks like an interesting place, though. And I think the ending part is distinctly important. Just because the rules say you cant have a gnome ranger, or a half elf paladin, doesnt mean you cant. But its not something that generally exists, and you have to figure out why your guy does, and how it contributes to the game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : Attila Date : 01-29-06 08:53 PM Nice article. I've always supported the racial class restrictions for the reasons given by the author. It seems like something is lost when you start freely mixing and matching races and classes. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : WizO_Cat Date : 01-30-06 10:38 PM Jut to be the voice on the other side of the argument, why do they say 2nd edition is the correct equilibrium? Why not keep everything like Basic D&D where races can only be one class (unless an exception can be specifically explained by the player)? Does allowing all races the ability to become thieves help take away from the stereotyped classes which each race has? Why stop at races - why have paladins and rangers? I can tell you that I've played paladins prior to ever knowing the PHB, since I played a fighter with the same virtues that a paladin would have. Doesn't having the paladins and rangers help dilute the fighter class? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : weasel fierce Date : 01-30-06 10:43 PM Warning. Im a huge fan of classic D&D, and I do think the way it handles demihumans and paladins is the best way, it has been done yet ;) I think, in regards to paladins and rangers, that those are sufficiently different archetypes that they can exist on their own. Ultimately though, they are "just fighters", if you want to get down and dirty, though. Fighters and thieves are generic enough concepts that all races will have them, I think. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : WizO_Cat Date : 01-30-06 11:09 PM Note that I said Basic D&D, not Classic D&D. If you want to be a cleric, be a human. If you want to be a thief, be a human. If you want to be a pure magic-user, be a human. If you want to be a pure fighter, be a human. Otherwise, if you're a drawf, you're a dwarf (etc, etc ...). That's how you save the "true flavor" of all races - keep the true playable classes to what their true stereotypes should be. After all, if someone wants to be a thief or fighter, shouldn't they be able to explain to their DM is full detail the reasoning why? Otherwise, all you're doing is advocating options, and once you open that door ... ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : weasel fierce Date : 01-30-06 11:49 PM When you say basic, are you referring to the Moldvay / Mentzer ones ? Or original D&D ? In view of AD&D / 3.x, I dont see an issue with having hobbit warriors and thieves (both exist in LOTR, which is arguably the model of the halfling), or elves that focus on magic, swordplay or both. If we want to go completely archetypical, the dwarves are a bit stuck with the fighter, but eh. The aim isnt to be completely archetypical, but to retain enough flavour to make races actually different. Not having access to everything makes for a distinctive trait, and gives some basis to roleplay from, and I think thats what hte article aims at. Not that there should be no options at all -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : weasel fierce Date : 01-30-06 11:50 PM Otherwise, all you're doing is advocating options, and once you open that door ... ;) Its not so much that there are options. Its what options there are :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : WizO_Cat Date : 01-31-06 07:22 AM Yeah, but whose to say where the line stops. When you make the exception for fighters and thieves, you've already crossed the line to say, "You know, the archetypes themselves are not work saving if it means sacrificing the option for the basic classes to be fighters and thieves." And there's nothing saying that the characters are making up a cross-section of the population for the races. If anything, the player characters are the adventuring types, who make up a small population of the races. Thus, allowing a character to play whatever he wants really doesn't dilute a race since a halfling fighter is a pretty unique thing, much less a halfling wizard. Heck, Pandora's box has been opened since the 1st edition AD&D when Gygax noted the option of players characters being monsters in the Dungeon Masters Guide. And why do they do it? It's because, as a whole, people want options. As for the current edition, it was the case for 1st edition AD&D versus Basic D&D. This is not anything revolutionary - it's been around for the last 25 years. And, really at the end of the article, is all about DMing. A DM can play with a ruleset that has races able to play all classes but make it so his world certain races can only play certain classes. A DM can play with a ruleset that has races only able to play certain classes but allow on his campaign world that races can play any classes. To say, "Well you can only play these classes as a race, but don't worry, if you give me a good note and concept, I'll let you play any class with that race", well that comes across as actually there's no rule for races and classes. Figuring in a game where you want the DM and players to communicate their concepts based on fantasy, DMs are usually going to allow players these exceptions, and thus the exception really becomes the rule. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : havard Date : 01-31-06 07:35 AM The aim isnt to be completely archetypical, but to retain enough flavour to make races actually different. Stereotypes can be useful, but IMO they are usually a bad thing. If one of my players want to play a dwarf, but decide not to wield a battle axe and not resemble something other than Gimli, I call that good roleplaying and might even give him an XP bonus. Classic D&D (Mentzer/RC and older versions) are based around stereotypes, but it still works since the system is so rules light. That is why I have a much bigger problem with AD&D which says certain races can be these classes and certain races can't. In Classic, you're just your race and the rest is up to how you roleplay it. Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 01-31-06 08:58 AM Class and race restrictions are meant to provide a form of elitism and speciality imho. Personally, I feel that level restrictions are far worse in that a race may be restricted to only two or three classes AND THEN can only achieve 8th or 10th level in those classes. It seems if a race is drawn to a specific class that class should be unlimited in gaining level. Now on to a pet peeve of mine. Dwarven druids. This is a complete oxymoron imho. I see very little argument in defense of such a monstrosity. I know we should all be uplifted and freed from such petty thoughts by the supreme 3.5 but I still think it's a BAD decision to play a dwarven druid. There I've said it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : havard Date : 01-31-06 09:35 AM Class and race restrictions are meant to provide a form of elitism and speciality imho. Personally, I feel that level restrictions are far worse in that a race may be restricted to only two or three classes AND THEN can only achieve 8th or 10th level in those classes. It seems if a race is drawn to a specific class that class should be unlimited in gaining level. We used the optional rule where level limits can be exceeded by paying double the XP. In retrospect, I think that was way to steep; a 10% XP penalty would have sufficed, and that could have been used for non traditional class choices as well. Now on to a pet peeve of mine. Dwarven druids. This is a complete oxymoron imho. I see very little argument in defense of such a monstrosity. I know we should all be uplifted and freed from such petty thoughts by the supreme 3.5 but I still think it's a BAD decision to play a dwarven druid. There I've said it. Who says no Game World has a dwarven culture that lives outside the mountains and revers nature? Who says one individual dwarf could never be raised by elves and have adopted their ways? Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 01-31-06 11:03 AM Upon meditation on the subject Havard I can see a dwarven druid with an affinity for earth/stone/magma spells but as far as some flowerchild dwarf preaching that rabbits and trees are our friends - it honestly makes want to puke! :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : WizO_Cat Date : 01-31-06 05:38 PM I guess the more I think of it, when talking about racial archetype preservation, using 2nd edition (or even 1st edition) is like somebody tossing rocks at other houses from the balcony of their glass home. And depending on what one is using for a reference for racial balance, Basic edition (what I cansider Moldavy/Cook and Holmes to be) is only slightly better. If you use the reference for halflings (or hobbits) and what the general concensus of the population to be for character classes via the referred fantasy literature, they shouldn't even be characters. After all, adventuring was actually frowned upon by hobbit society. The Baggins family name took on a stigma to it due to their wanderings around. Heck, under the same requirement, an elf would have to adventure with only other elves. Using LotR as a reference, elves usually didn't want to interact with other races that much. Thus, using the "racial archetype preservation" as a guide when combined with some fantasy literature as a reference, you'd end up with a hodge-podge of rules that would be more restricting than anything. I like many things about 1st edition and 2nd edition rules - don't get me wrong. I like playing in those systems. But 2nd edition (or even 1st edition) as the golden rule for "racial archetype preservation?" Okay .... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : Attila Date : 01-31-06 08:49 PM Maybe there is no golden rule for racial archetypes. Players just naturally know what feels right to them. That's probably why people get so emotional about the restrictions or lack of them in particular editions of the game. People like what they started out with and for them it feels right. Fantasy literature has changed over the years and the game reflects that to an extent. WizO_Cat's argument is hard to refute because there is no real basis for the archetypes other than what I mentioned already. However, I do disagree about hobbits...even though the Bagginses are stated to be exceptions, they have become the standard in the minds of readers since they are the focus of the Hobbit/LoTR, the other hobbits serving as mere backdrops. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : WizO_Cat Date : 01-31-06 09:03 PM Maybe there is no golden rule for racial archetypes. Players just naturally know what feels right to them. That's probably why people get so emotional about the restrictions or lack of them in particular editions of the game. People like what they started out with and for them it feels right. Fantasy literature has changed over the years and the game reflects that to an extent. I guess I agree to that as well. It is a flavor thing that everyone has grown comfortable with, because everyone has grown in differing situation. I started the game in 1980. I'm thinking that my racial archetype would be different than one that started in the early 1970's but also different than someon that started in the late 1980's and beyond. IMHO, that's another problem that I have with the article: when I read it, its premise is stated like it is was hard facts when it isn't. Nicely written but IMHO based one's perception of the game. WizO_Cat's argument is hard to refute because there is no real basis for the archetypes other than what I mentioned already. However, I do disagree about hobbits...even though the Bagginses are stated to be exceptions, they have become the standard in the minds of readers since they are the focus of the Hobbit/LoTR, the other hobbits serving as mere backdrops. I agree that when people think of hobbits, they think of the adventuring type like Frodo, Sam, and Bilbo. However, if you use fantasy literature and the racial stereotype noted as such in the literature as the basis of classes in D&D, Tolkien definitely meant, as a population, for hobbits to be homebodies. Otherwise, if we base the racial stereotypes from the protagonists and antagonists in literature, the main argument would be that races can be anything, because usually such characters are different than the rest of the population. Hence my original arguement about characters - they were never meant to be representative of the population. In fact, they only make up an extremely small part of the population. Thus, in my mindset, characters can't ruin a vision of a population since by definition they are to make up a very small and very eccentric portion of the population. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : weasel fierce Date : 01-31-06 09:14 PM Ultimately though, ANY allowance or restriction comes down to personal preference, which is what we;'re discussing here. I think it makes a big difference whether something is readily available to play, or whether its something exceptional, that requires some thought put into it. If anyone can play a dwarf wizard, then dwarves are as magically able as everyone else. The dwarf and the elf are exactly equally good (the elf only has an edge under certain multiclass conditions) If playing a dwarf wizard is something unique and unusual, then it paints a different picture, both of the campaign, and the character. That ignores the idea that some things just plain may not be possible. Dwarves in AD&D are strongly anti-magical, hence they plain dont have wizards. All the concept in the world wont change that. The new spirit is to say "you can do everything", which is okay. I dig GURPS as much as the next person, but it doesnt feel like Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms to me. And honestly, I dont really see any point playing D&D if it doesnt feel like what I feel D&D is. Thats entirely me though :) Ultimately it all comes down to preferences. There's no logical argument for why a race cant be a certain class, or why they can play a certain class. Yeah, but whose to say where the line stops. When you make the exception for fighters and thieves, you've already crossed the line to say, "You know, the archetypes themselves are not work saving if it means sacrificing the option for the basic classes to be fighters and thieves." Fighters and thieves are the only two classes that has no cultural requirements (unlike say, the druid and cavalier) and no supernatural elements (unlike the magic user or cleric). Hence, it would have made no sense to restrict those two. They're the universal "common man" classes. WizO_Cat's argument is hard to refute because there is no real basis for the archetypes other than what I mentioned already I do think that there are basis for the limitations. You can go through and see each class, and what its based off, litterary-wise, and reason why its not allowed. Its just that its not a /logical/ argument, because its based off one mans interpretation of how these things would work in Greyhawk -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : WizO_Cat Date : 01-31-06 10:06 PM Ultimately though, ANY allowance or restriction comes down to personal preference, which is what we;'re discussing here. I think it makes a big difference whether something is readily available to play, or whether its something exceptional, that requires some thought put into it. If anyone can play a dwarf wizard, then dwarves are as magically able as everyone else. The dwarf and the elf are exactly equally good (the elf only has an edge under certain multiclass conditions) If playing a dwarf wizard is something unique and unusual, then it paints a different picture, both of the campaign, and the character. The poin though is that in any campaign, dwarf wizards are atypical. Most dwarves are commoners, miners, and the such. Very few are ever characters. And that was the point of my previous post - the characters make up an extremely small population to begin with. In fact, you're signing up certain stipulations as well: when you become a wizard, you're assuming that the character went through some sort of wizard training to get to the power level that a character starts of with at 1st level. To be a character, you have to be an exception. That ignores the idea that some things just plain may not be possible. Dwarves in AD&D are strongly anti-magical, hence they plain dont have wizards. All the concept in the world wont change that. But, you see, the article doesn't say the above. It states that if a character can explain why his dwarf character can be a wizard and explain it sufficiently to the DM, then the character can be allowed. The new spirit is to say "you can do everything", which is okay. I dig GURPS as much as the next person, but it doesnt feel like Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms to me. And honestly, I dont really see any point playing D&D if it doesnt feel like what I feel D&D is. Thats entirely me though :) That's been with the game since I started in 1980. Everyone wanted a unique character, and everyone came up with crazy class and character combinations. Like I said earlier, the 1st edition AD&D DMG had provisions of having monsters as characters. Laying this solely at the doorstep of GURPS is something I can't agree with. Ultimately it all comes down to preferences. There's no logical argument for why a race cant be a certain class, or why they can play a certain class. If the guy wrote the article as such, I would be cool with it. However, he put 2nd edition as some sort of gold standard, and that's where we diverged. Fighters and thieves are the only two classes that has no cultural requirements (unlike say, the druid and cavalier) and no supernatural elements (unlike the magic user or cleric). Hence, it would have made no sense to restrict those two. They're the universal "common man" classes. But that's only because in the author's mindset (which is fine, BTW) that is what the author's perception of allowable classes should be. I do think that there are basis for the limitations. You can go through and see each class, and what its based off, litterary-wise, and reason why its not allowed. This is where the divergence begins. Per the literary works, hobbits should be classless since they are homebodies and elves should only adventure with elves because of their racial archetypes. Heck, I think we even have agreement per literary works that dwarves should just be fighters. If you think of it, Bilbo, Sam, and Frodo are the characters which the players went to the DM to allow because they cut against the racial stereotype so much. It's just that DM Tolkien agreed with the reasoning that the players provided. ;) Its just that its not a /logical/ argument, because its based off one mans interpretation of how these things would work in Greyhawk Bingo. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : weasel fierce Date : 01-31-06 10:19 PM The poin though is that in any campaign, dwarf wizards are atypical. Most dwarves are commoners, miners, and the such. Very few are ever characters. And that was the point of my previous post - the characters make up an extremely small population to begin with. In fact, you're signing up certain stipulations as well: when you become a wizard, you're assuming that the character went through some sort of wizard training to get to the power level that a character starts of with at 1st level. To be a character, you have to be an exception. Thats certainly an argument for allowing odd things. The other view is that by virtue of being a PC, you're already exceptional (a level 9 dwarf fighter is as adept as a 9 hit die monster in combat. Thats the stuff of demons and red dragons. Not shabby) But, you see, the article doesn't say the above. It states that if a character can explain why his dwarf character can be a wizard and explain it sufficiently to the DM, then the character can be allowed. Actually he specifically mentions dwarves magic resistance, and their inability to cast spells. His example is a gnome ranger. That's been with the game since I started in 1980. Everyone wanted a unique character, and everyone came up with crazy class and character combinations. Like I said earlier, the 1st edition AD&D DMG had provisions of having monsters as characters. Laying this solely at the doorstep of GURPS is something I can't agree with. What I meant to say was that GURPS does that kind of thing better. We never really had odd combo's, though we did have new races and classes we came up with. If the guy wrote the article as such, I would be cool with it. However, he put 2nd edition as some sort of gold standard, and that's where we diverged. Surprising numbers of people dont think there are more than 2 versions of D&D. AD&D2, and D20. I agree that 2nd edition isnt really the best option for that kinda thing, but the general spirit of the article is the same. But that's only because in the author's mindset (which is fine, BTW) that is what the author's perception of allowable classes should be. To a degree. But I think its hard to argue that anyone can fight, and anyone can steal. 'sides, what is a sword&sorcery genre game without fighting and stealing ? This is where the divergence begins. Per the literary works, hobbits should be classless since they are homebodies and elves should only adventure with elves because of their racial archetypes. Heck, I think we even have agreement per literary works that dwarves should just be fighters. If you think of it, Bilbo, Sam, and Frodo are the characters which the players went to the DM to allow because they cut against the racial stereotype so much. It's just that DM Tolkien agreed with the reasoning that the players provided. ;) Based on what though ? Hobbits for the most part ARE classless. If you look in the monster manual, most halflings are 1 HD creatures, with a few exceptional ones around. Yes, allowing them as playable characters means they stand apart (assuming that their mindsets are clearly Tolkien, something that, for the elves, simply dont hold true), but that doesnt mean they wont retain some elements of their culture. We still have certain expectations that we hold for an elf or hobbit character. Based on the idea that PC's are all unusual, those expectations are surely outdated ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : WizO_Cat Date : 01-31-06 10:40 PM Thats certainly an argument for allowing odd things. The other view is that by virtue of being a PC, you're already exceptional (a level 9 dwarf fighter is as adept as a 9 hit die monster in combat. Thats the stuff of demons and red dragons. Not shabby) [quote] that's another good point. Long story short, player characters are the exception, not the norm. [quote]Actually he specifically mentions dwarves magic resistance, and their inability to cast spells. His example is a gnome ranger. Acutally he said this: This isn't to argue that exceptions can't be made. By definition, they are made. Joe wants to play a gnomish ranger? Make a good case to the DM why this gnome came to be a ranger, a concept that doesn't exist within the structure of gnomish society. As such, it's not a standard race/class combination. He didn't say anything about limiting it to a races limitation. If a player explains that his character was born next to a magical spring to "short-circuit" the dwarf's inability to cast spells, if it is compelling of a case, then the DM is going to allow it. He's not stating that it wouldn't be the case. What I meant to say was that GURPS does that kind of thing better. We never really had odd combo's, though we did have new races and classes we came up with. Well, you're explaining your experiences with earlier editions (which is all fine and good), but that doesn't mean that it was the norm. Maybe I gamed with some wild groups, but we hd all sorts of combinations while playing AD&D 1st edition back in the early 1980s. Surprising numbers of people dont think there are more than 2 versions of D&D. AD&D2, and D20. I agree that 2nd edition isnt really the best option for that kinda thing, but the general spirit of the article is the same. I understand the spirit he was trying to convey, but just not his basis. I guess that we agree on that. Based on what though ? Hobbits for the most part ARE classless. If you look in the monster manual, most halflings are 1 HD creatures, with a few exceptional ones around. Yes, allowing them as playable characters means they stand apart (assuming that their mindsets are clearly Tolkien, something that, for the elves, simply dont hold true), but that doesnt mean they wont retain some elements of their culture. Precisely. How can a player characters dilute a race if they don't even make up a sizable portion of the race? And even dwarven wizards retain some portion of their culture: I'm doubting every player is playing a drawven wizard just like an elf just because the dwarf's character class is a wizard. I guess that this is a disconnect with me. We still have certain expectations that we hold for an elf or hobbit character. Based on the idea that PC's are all unusual, those expectations are surely outdated ;) Some could say that our AD&D views of races is outdated. ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : weasel fierce Date : 01-31-06 10:52 PM He didn't say anything about limiting it to a races limitation. If a player explains that his character was born next to a magical spring to "short-circuit" the dwarf's inability to cast spells, if it is compelling of a case, then the DM is going to allow it. He's not stating that it wouldn't be the case. Of course. The purpose of the DM is to arbitrate the world. If he thinks its plausible that the magic spring would make a dwarf wizard, then he's the boss. Just like you can choose to ignore the multiclass penalty in D20. But its still in there. Precisely. How can a player characters dilute a race if they don't even make up a sizable portion of the race? And even dwarven wizards retain some portion of their culture: I'm doubting every player is playing a drawven wizard just like an elf just because the dwarf's character class is a wizard. I guess that this is a disconnect with me. I think its more the principle that if all dwarves can be wizards, then it gives a different worldview of the race, than if dwarves generally cant be wizards. Im not sure I can really explain it. Some could say that our AD&D views of races is outdated. ;) The day Vance, Moorcock, Tolkien, Andersen and Howard get together to write a fantasy book together, is the day I'll change my views on D&D ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : WizO_Cat Date : 01-31-06 11:15 PM Of course. The purpose of the DM is to arbitrate the world. If he thinks its plausible that the magic spring would make a dwarf wizard, then he's the boss. Just like you can choose to ignore the multiclass penalty in D20. But its still in there. Yeah, but that's the reason a few posts ago I brought up the thing about exceptions: once you bring up exceptions and allowances, then over time they become the norm. I think its more the principle that if all dwarves can be wizards, then it gives a different worldview of the race, than if dwarves generally cant be wizards. Im not sure I can really explain it. I think that I understand it. I guess that I just don't have much of a problem with it because the last thing that I should try to get any race's archetype from is based off a player character. The archetypes are still emblazoned in my mind. I still play that normal dwarves don't care too much for magic, even though there are dwarven wizards. The day Vance, Moorcock, Tolkien, Andersen and Howard get together to write a fantasy book together, is the day I'll change my views on D&D ;) I'll see if I can dig them up for you ... it'll be a grave undertaking. :) (Yeah, yeah ... bad pun ... ) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : weasel fierce Date : 01-31-06 11:22 PM I think we have gotten to the point, where we both understand the other persons position, without nescesarily sharing it. Time for peacefull coexistence :) *clobbers him over the head with a stick when he looks away* -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : Attila Date : 01-31-06 11:55 PM Yeah, but that's the reason a few posts ago I brought up the thing about exceptions: once you bring up exceptions and allowances, then over time they become the norm. That's the problem I have with discarding racial restrictions wholesale. The restrictions give a game flavor and style. People usually disagree on whether they like a particular style but they at least recognize that the style is there. Let players decide if there is a good reason to make an exceptional character. For a science fiction or modern game a lack of any restrictions is part of the flavor. The universe is wide open. Sword and sworcery involves going back and requires more suspension of belief (at least for me) and archetypes help get me into the setting. I think WizO_Cat may have run with the wild bunch, we never had crazy class/race combinations. Just the run of the mill standard PHB/Cook/Moldvay variety. Monstrous characters and Psionics was a bad call on the part of EGG, IMO. As a kid I took the D&D archetypes to heart so much so that the game itself became the archetype. I still don't think Magic Users should use any weapon other than a dagger or staff. No amount of argument by a friend that even Gandalf wielded a sword could convince me otherwise. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : weasel fierce Date : 02-01-06 12:32 AM Well, to be fair, the good EGG did heartily recommend against monstrous characters, except as an occasional change or one-off experience Something that I do wholeheartedly agree with, as far as D&D goes -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : Tenzhi Date : 02-01-06 01:10 AM I'll address a few points from the article specifically, and then I may move on to pointless rhetoric. ;) "What uses, for example, have elves of Bards? Why devote one's whole profession to telling tales? In an Elven lifetime, there will be plenty of time for that." Why devote one's profession to something one will have plenty of time to do? It seems a pretty silly statement to me. Why devote one's profession to something you *don't* have time for. "When a game starts allowing players to just make that choice on their own, those combinations go from being the exception to commonplace, and in the process, the demi-human races become little more than those humans in funny suits." Nothing the player makes is necessarily commonplace. They're supposed to be out of the ordinary from the get-go. And even if a player makes a hundred dwarven druids in his lifetime, he'll hardly have impacted the commonalities of any given setting. As to humans in funny suits - that's all any race is in the end. They are conceived by humans and given traits that either exaggerate human qualities or are imagined as "alien" from a human perspective. Either way they go ends up decidedly human in the end. Man created elf in his own image. Man created dragon from his own traits. And man created otyugh out of the effluvium of his own soul. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : havard Date : 02-01-06 05:45 AM That's the problem I have with discarding racial restrictions wholesale. The restrictions give a game flavor and style. People usually disagree on whether they like a particular style but they at least recognize that the style is there. Let players decide if there is a good reason to make an exceptional character. For a science fiction or modern game a lack of any restrictions is part of the flavor. The universe is wide open. Sword and sworcery involves going back and requires more suspension of belief (at least for me) and archetypes help get me into the setting. These archtypes may make sense in the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk, but not neccesarily in every fantasy setting. I think WizO_Cat may have run with the wild bunch, we never had crazy class/race combinations. Just the run of the mill standard PHB/Cook/Moldvay variety. Monstrous characters and Psionics was a bad call on the part of EGG, IMO. These days my group has lost interest in non-human PCs altogether. Humans work just as nicely. I am glad that there are options for generating monsterous and psionic characters though, especially so that I can create high level NPCs using these options. As a kid I took the D&D archetypes to heart so much so that the game itself became the archetype. I still don't think Magic Users should use any weapon other than a dagger or staff. No amount of argument by a friend that even Gandalf wielded a sword could convince me otherwise. If you've played a game or two, I can relate to this. After 500+ characters, you start yearning for something else. The benefit of restrictions is that it makes it easier to generate a character, especially for beginners or if you are short on time. Too many options can easily just be confusing. However, I wish the rules had been written in a more lenient manner, including more options on how to break with the archtypes if they didn't fit with your setting. D&D is about more than playing a game the way Gygax would have wanted us to. Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : Elendur Date : 02-01-06 11:55 AM The whole concept of fantasy "races" doesn't make much sense to begin with. If the various races were in fact different species, it would be hard to justify any sort of game rule balance among them. If elves lived 10 times longer than humans, most people recognize that they would be vastly superior(as indeed they are in Tolkien). The concept of race in the real world involves some minor genetic features combined with a particular cultural background. When you get down to it, that's all D&D races are too. They are all just people, with minor ability score adjustments and particular backgrounds. It's very much akin to the aliens in star trek; they are really just metaphors for different types of human culture and personality. You could certainly play a roleplaying game in which each "race" were truly a complete and separate species, but I would argue that no version of D&D has ever really supported that concept. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : WizO_Cat Date : 02-01-06 11:16 PM That's the problem I have with discarding racial restrictions wholesale. The restrictions give a game flavor and style. People usually disagree on whether they like a particular style but they at least recognize that the style is there. Let players decide if there is a good reason to make an exceptional character. For a science fiction or modern game a lack of any restrictions is part of the flavor. The universe is wide open. Sword and sworcery involves going back and requires more suspension of belief (at least for me) and archetypes help get me into the setting. But the problem is that wholesale and actual practice often become blurred, especially when given the background outlined in the article. He goes about explaining how great it is to preserve racial stereotypes, but then he saids that it's fine to override them if the DM feels the story is acceptable. For example, let's take the following gaming group: DM: Ok, let's play 2nd edition because it preserves racial stereotypes. I find that important in games. Everyone: Here,here! Player 1: Except I want to play a Dwarven Magic-User since he grew up near a spring and thus became infused with magic due to his daily drinks at the spring. DM: Sound plausible. I'll allow it. Player 2: Oh yeah, my dwark was kidnapped by nymphs when he was young. Thus, he got to appreciate the nature and the beauty it provides. So, as a druid, he wishes to protect nature from man's incursion. DM: Sounds plausible. I'll allow it. Player 3: Oh yeah, my dwarf stuck his hand up against a TV during a tele-evangelism program and thus was touched by faith. Thus, he was infused with the powers of a paladin. DM: Sounds plausible. I'll alllow it. Man, I'm glad I'm playing an edition that preserves that racial stereotypes. Group: Hear! Hear! ... I think WizO_Cat may have run with the wild bunch, we never had crazy class/race combinations. Just the run of the mill standard PHB/Cook/Moldvay variety. Monstrous characters and Psionics was a bad call on the part of EGG, IMO. That's fine, but then what is really being said is, "You know, 2nd edition is the perfect ruleset for racial stereotype preservation if played with this laundry list of perceived racial stereotypes along with this other laundry list of exceptions of existing rules. Oh yeah, it's not that bad since the DM can adjust and allow for things anyway if you come with a suitable teacher's note." Hardly a rock solid position if you ask me, but YMMV. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : weasel fierce Date : 02-01-06 11:22 PM Well, in that example, it doesnt sound like the DM and players really wanted to play with the racial archetypes in any event. However, any DM that permits an option like that, will already have thought out what consequences it will have. That being said, you dont think there's any difference between there being ONE dwarf paladin in the entire world of, say, Krynn, and it being a commonly available option with a few representatives in every city ? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : Attila Date : 02-02-06 12:09 AM ......but then he saids that it's fine to override them if the DM feels the story is acceptable. For example, let's take the following gaming group:...... The important thing here is that the players were forced to come up with explanations for why their characters were special and the DM had to be convinced to allow. Many will disagree but I think there is an important difference between having restrictions that can be overriden by the DM and have no restrictions and forcing the DM to create his own. When the restrictions are built-in to the game they become part of the flavor of that game and part of player expectations. Leaving them open allows for more creativity perhaps but IMO changes the flavor of the game. We are basically going in circles with this because ultimately it comes down to what flavor we prefer. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : Tenzhi Date : 02-02-06 01:19 AM That being said, you dont think there's any difference between there being ONE dwarf paladin in the entire world of, say, Krynn, and it being a commonly available option with a few representatives in every city ? Of course: the difference being that options available to players aren't necessarily taken by NPCs. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : sunman Date : 02-03-06 09:11 PM Thread Title : class restrictions If you want to have fun, go out of the box and have a character that the rules don't allow. I have a grey elf Invoker / Cleric (ancestor kit, priest handbook). DM setup a world where their are no level limitations for demihumans. The character is still one of my favorites! :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 35] Author : RobertFisher Date : 02-04-06 12:14 AM Does allowing all races the ability to become thieves help take away from the stereotyped classes which each race has? [snippage] Doesn't having the paladins and rangers help dilute the fighter class? Yes. This is one of the reasons 1981 Basic/Expert D&D is currently my favorite D&D. I like have seven very distinct classes. I have shelves full of games that allow you to craft characters with nigh infinite flexibility better than any game with the name Dungeons & Dragons on the cover ever has. When I want a game where each player creates his own race & can pick & choose his characters abilities to taste, I don't pick a book that says Dungeons & Dragons on the cover. When I play D&D, I want something simple & stylized. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 36] Author : WizO_Cat Date : 02-04-06 10:27 PM Yes. This is one of the reasons 1981 Basic/Expert D&D is currently my favorite D&D. I like have seven very distinct classes. Well, I'm fine with this, but it's got to be taken into the context of only preserving racial stereotypes of B/X editions, not racial stereotypes from literature. The author in the original article was making the assumption of the latter, not the former. heck, no edition does a perfect job of keeping racial stereotypes from fantasy literature, as others have mentioned before. I have shelves full of games that allow you to craft characters with nigh infinite flexibility better than any game with the name Dungeons & Dragons on the cover ever has. When I want a game where each player creates his own race & can pick & choose his characters abilities to taste, I don't pick a book that says Dungeons & Dragons on the cover. That's fine, but personally I find it easier to play derivatives of an OoP game rather than try to learn a new RPG from ground up. YMMV. When I play D&D, I want something simple & stylized. When I want to play a simplified version of the game, I also like to play B/X. However, I like to play other in-print and OoP versions of D&D, depending on what my groups mood is in. I guess my biggest problem with the original article is that at the end of it all, it was like they were taking some holier-than-thou approach to their version of the game that they were trying to prop up. All I was saying is that it had warts as well in the points that they were trying to convey, and in fact every edition has its warts. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 37] Author : Attila Date : 02-05-06 02:06 PM What the DMG touches on, but never really gets at, is that an open approach to classes waters down the flavor of the demi-human races. I think this quote summarizes what the author of the article was getting at. A line should be drawn somewhere as to how the demi-human races are to be defined. The purpose of this is to make them more believable and prevent them from just becoming 'humans in funny suits'. No where in the article does the author suggest that any particular version of demi-humans is 100% consistent with fantasy literature. He only suggests that 2nd edition racial/class restrictions be maintained as a way of distinguishing the races. Not that they are authoritative interpretations of the demi-human races. I think the author has some excellent points, but they get clouded by trying to compare editions and his apparent preference for 2nd edition. The author would be better off eliminating references to particular editions and focusing on his true argument. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 38] Author : WizO_Cat Date : 02-05-06 10:12 PM Well, let's follow up with what follows in that paragraph: To be an elf is not just to be pointy-haired, tree-dwelling human. Good fantasy elves have a completely different outlook on life. They see the world, figuratively and literally, through different eyes. They see a generation of humans live and die before they are even fully grown. The long sight of a nearly ageless race tints the glasses through which they look upon the world. What uses, for example, have elves of Bards? Why devote one's whole profession to telling tales? In an Elven lifetime, there will be plenty of time for that. All I'm noting is that "good fantasy elves" don't follow to what was called out in any edition of D&D to a tee. The author pull out the traits that are beneficial to his arguments and ignores the traits that don't, and that's the problem with rose-tinted glasses. I was figuring that the author was using as a reference fantasy literature since if we're going to use any reference, if I pull out some Deathstar 4000 RPG game which shows lasers shooting out elven eyes that definitely would be a perspective. It would be a low population perspective with less history than fantasy literature, but it definitely would be a perspective. Except for that, I pretty much agree with everything else. Hey, I played all of the editions back in the day and have fond memories of them all. From time to time I still play the. All I'm saying is that when we look back at them let's be honest with ourselves. I'm not saying that anybody in this thread is not doing that, but I really question if the author of the article is doing so. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 39] Author : oralpain Date : 02-11-06 02:43 AM I've never really been into overly strict archtypes. I think 2E had the right balance between flexibility and "flavor", for me. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 40] Author : Evergreen_Aldaron Date : 02-11-06 02:06 PM It is still of matter of personal preference for the gamers. My thought has always been that if some bending or stretrching of rules is acceptable to all involved - go for it! If not, stay true to the course. Personally, my campaign group has basically scrapped them in some cases, but we still try to have common sense discussions about the topic. In my opinion (and mine only) it is your game, do with it what makes you happy. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:18 AM.