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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree with the odd combos requiring a good backstory. (usually those are the characters that end up being remembered anyways)
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.