Community

Now I'm not saying the whole 1e/2e level limits, but I would like the 'feel' that D&D had back when Halfling Paladins riding War Dogs weren't charging Dragons in the knees-cap (silliness I tell you).

Thanks, for the consideration, at least as an optional 'traditional D&D feel' game.

May 29, 2012 -- 3:22AM, HDimagination wrote:

To be honest, I think all that's needed here is a single line in the DMG: The DM has final say over what race/class combinations in the game. Given that the above is something that is so driven by personal taste, you'd only end up causing even more edition waring than there already is.

I would like to see that line actually say - for 1e/2e Halflings: Fighter, Thief, and I think Druid in 2e?  Rather than - argue with your DM until one of you gives in...

I think a method, one hinted at by by Mike Mearls' recent blog post regarding some dice differences on the playtest character sheets from the packet rules, of rewarding people playing the "classic combos" of race and class is a better way to go about this than to actually say "no" to the so called silly options...

You don't like halfling paladins, fine... I don't either. If Humans get a higher hit die or an AC boost while playing a paladin... then many players are going to lean toward human as their race when they choose to play a paladin.

Much like in the playtest the dwarf fighter (a classic combo) has a higher hit die than normal, the dwarf cleric of moradin (another classic) has a higher AC than he "should", and both deal greater damage with their hammer or axe because those are the classic "dwarf weapons."

May 29, 2012 -- 3:13AM, Thealas wrote:

Now I'm not saying the whole 1e/2e level limits, but I would like the 'feel' that D&D had back when Halfling Paladins riding War Dogs weren't charging Dragons in the knees-cap (silliness I tell you).

Thanks, for the consideration, at least as an optional 'traditional D&D feel' game.

Feel free to add any racial class restrictions you like *at your gametable.*

Adding racial/class restrictions back into the game would be something that would honestly drive me away from it, and I believe I would not be the only one.

I support the idea of rewarding traditional combinations, but I vehemently oppose the idea of actively restricting player choice in this manner.  To me, one of the great ideas of third edition was allowing any player to play any class. 

To me, it restricts the feel of everything as a whole if you say "Dwarves can't be wizards."  Suddenly there's an entire element of society that cannot exist.  No isolated dwarven wizard who specializes in some form of gem magic, etc.  I'm fine with "Dwarves are rarely wizards."  That's cool.  I still have the option as a DM to put a Dwarven wizard in the game, and my players still have the option to play one. 

In short, I see absolutely no benefit whatsoever to actually saying that certain races can and cannot be certain classes.  Saying you view something as silly is a valid opinion, but it is only an opinion, and I personally, want game decisions to be based on facts, and not someone's personal viewpoints.  Otherwise, I could say that I want the base D&D setting to be Ravenloft, because that was my favorite one, and everyone else should have to live with it.  It's a valid opinion, but there is no facts to back it up, and it's obvious that it's a better option for my to have my games set in Ravenloft and let everyone else have their base setting be a traditional fantasy one that they can adapt how they please.