|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 1:04PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jan 13, 2012
|
So my question is simple, what limits should there be on characters in the new 5e. Should there be some class and race or restrictions that apply to all players in all settings or are we down to magic do as you will. Should some champagne setting include/exclude certain races and classes? What about alignment restrictions? One of the things I really disliked about 3e was Savage Species, too many players trying to play too many weird races. We all have played with Bob the power gamer who would like his first level character to be a 16 hit die dragon the question is what should Bob’s limits be. It seems like with each new addition there are fewer and fewer places where we tell the PC no. I want my players to have a lot of choices when it comes to building there character, but where are the limits? I want to hear as many opinions on this as possible.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 1:07PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Should there be some class and race or restrictions that apply to all players in all settings
No.
Should some champagne setting include/exclude certain races and classes?
Sure, any campaign setting can choose to restrict anything it wants.
What about alignment restrictions?
Not across all settings, no. See above. Furthermore, alignment must be optional as a whole.
It seems like with each new addition there are fewer and fewer places where we tell the PC no.
There's a reason there's a section in the DMG called "Saying Yes."
Bottom line? Your preferences for campaign integrity must have zero impact on my ability to tell my own story at my own table, and vice versa.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 1:12PM
#3
|
- Unconventional Mafia Pro
- Dark Lord
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2001
|
I support Mand's first 3 answers.
I've gone into a lot of depth on my philosophy of answers in the past.
"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice." THE COALITION WAR GAME-Phyrexian Praetor Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill) Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills) Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill) Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills) Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills) Round 6: (8-7-1) [current round] Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 1:15PM
#4
|
|
|
I agree with Mand on most of his answers, except the alignment one: Alignment needs to die in a fire and never become anything but optional ever again. I can accept it as optional, but never anything else ever again (except nonexistant). But yeah... let me and my players choose our characters - dwarves not being able to work magic is - as a general rule across all settings - nonsense.
If you have questions about 4th Edition - don't hesitate to ask me via PMs. Join the Community Monster Manual Group and help to collect a mass of monsters which will make your life as DM easier, and your life as Player pure hell!  I am a cartographer. You can find some of my maps in my profile, free for non-commercial use. Also, if you happen to like maps or make them yourselves, join into the Cartographers Group!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 1:29PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
So...you agree with me on alignment, then.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 1:33PM
#6
|
|
|
Essentially - I decided in the last minute to add the point about it being optional. My position, personally without recognizing the needs of others, is that it should die in a fire, it's ashes locked away in the deepest, darkest recesses of the world.
But then - as I said - I decided to add the part about being optional. Because really, as long as I can ignore it wholesale without having to root through the mechanics, I'm fine. That way I can ignore it and banish it to hell on a personal level. I do have my own dealbreakers, but they go only so far as to make things optional. I can live with alignment being optional. I can live with vancian classes - if they're optional and they provide alternatives.
That's why, in retrospect, my initial posting didn't make too much sense, I'd say.
If you have questions about 4th Edition - don't hesitate to ask me via PMs. Join the Community Monster Manual Group and help to collect a mass of monsters which will make your life as DM easier, and your life as Player pure hell! I am a cartographer. You can find some of my maps in my profile, free for non-commercial use. Also, if you happen to like maps or make them yourselves, join into the Cartographers Group!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 1:35PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
Should there be some class and race or restrictions that apply to all players in all settings?
No. How would you even enforce it? Each group should be free to apply restrictions (or not) as they see fit.
Should some champagne setting include/exclude certain races and classes?
Sure. Dark Sun has always done this. That said, PCs are special, and it is a good idea to include a section for the DM talking about how to include such things. Taking Dark Sun as an example, perhaps one of your players wants to make a gnome. Well, have their character be the last gnome, sole descendant of a small band who survived the cleansing. This doesn't break the world, is interesting, and allows for a cool plot (agents of the Gnome Slayer who want to finish the job).
What about alignment restrictions?
Nope. Nothing wrong with having alignment guidelines, though. So, the book could say that most paladins are lawful good, for example.
We all have played with Bob the power gamer who would like his first level character to be a 16 hit die dragon the question is what should Bob’s limits be.
The problem is not that Bob is playing a dragon; the problem is that Bob's character is vastly more powerful than the other characters. The rules should keep choices balanced with one another. The Savage Species book actually was attempting to do just that. Bob's 1st level dragon was supposed to be just as powerful as any other 1st level character.
It seems like with each new addition there are fewer and fewer places where we tell the PC no.
As Mand said, it is much more constructive to ask, "Why not?" than to say, "No". You don't have to allow everything; you don't have to give out Vorpal Swords at level 1. But in general you, as the DM, should do what you can to help your players make the characters they want to make.
I want my players to have a lot of choices when it comes to building there character, but where are the limits?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are saying, "I want my players to have a lot of choices when it comes to building their character, but only among the options of which I personally approve."
While I personally disapprove of this mentality, I don't play in your game; you are free to do what you want.
It comes down to this, would it be better for the books to be:
1) Inclusive, with the understanding that individual DMs/campaign settings/groups can exclude what they want.
or
2) Exclusive, with the understanding that individual DMs/campaign settings/groups can include what they want.
I say the former is better because everyone has a different opinion on what elements they want to use. As a result, any sort of exclusions imposed by WotC aren't going to match up perfectly with the vast majority of groups. It is thus better for the PHB to be inclusive and let each group decide what elements they want to use. Campaign setting books, as mentioned above, will be more exclusive, because they have an established theme.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 1:35PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Alignment is just fine when it's entirely fluff.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 1:48PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2012
|
@Arithezoo
I agree with pretty much all of what you said. One nit. (there always is right  )
I disagree that players should start with a character concept. They should start with a world concept provided by their DM and then they should develop a character concept that fits into that world. If they can't find a DM that caters to their concept then hey trying running a game of your own as DM. Maybe others want the same thing.
I am definitely against this implied everything goes D&D setting. I am for all the options though. I'm just against it being implied that everyone of them is always available. I'm for DM's helping players to develop an idea into their world where it is possible and makes sense. I am just against the attitude that it's all my character and the world is unimportant.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 1:58PM
#10
|
|
|
@Arithezoo
I agree with pretty much all of what you said. One nit. (there always is right )
I disagree that players should start with a character concept. They should start with a world concept provided by their DM and then they should develop a character concept that fits into that world. If they can't find a DM that caters to their concept then hey trying running a game of your own as DM. Maybe others want the same thing.
I am definitely against this implied everything goes D&D setting. I am for all the options though. I'm just against it being implied that everyone of them is always available. I'm for DM's helping players to develop an idea into their world where it is possible and makes sense. I am just against the attitude that it's all my character and the world is unimportant.
Disagree. World concept and character concepts shoudl, IMO, be discussed and fleshed out together.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
