|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 10:01AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Sep 11, 2007
|
I have no problem with a DM limiting specific race/class combinations at their own table...
But along with everyone else, I agree this is definitely not part of the core rules and IF it appeared in the printed optional rules, it would only be as a setting specific restriction.
On the other hand, I would encourage and DMs out there that would want to do this: first ask yourself "why".
If, for example, you have a clear race/culture reason (such as in your campaign flavor, Dwarfs don't have wizards, but instead have shamans that tap into ancestor-worship spirit power), that's perfectly reasonable. If it's a more arbitrary "just because" or "I don't like certain combinations", open yourself up to the possibility of the players' desires and imagination. It could be that one of them come up with a cool backstory for some combination that you have a dislike for... and that it could change your mind completely. Also, it's almost always better to say "Yes" to your players than to say "No".
Lastly, consider making this a pre-game discussion with your players as well. There is a social contract (even if unspoken) at the table, and arbitrary decisions to disallow certain things has the potential to break trust between the players and GM.
As an example, in my 4e game, I asked my players not to make Dragonborn characters because I had a really strong idea to introduce the race into the campaign as a major villainous force (similar to Draconians)... but I *asked*. I didn't impose. I exlpained that I had an idea for using Dragonborn and a PC Dragonborn would not "fit in" in a humoid city because of those reasons. If someone *really* wanted to play one, I'd work it in if I had to, but would like the option to avoid having to do that. They were cool with it.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 10:23AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Lastly, consider making this a pre-game discussion with your players as well. There is a social contract (even if unspoken) at the table, and arbitrary decisions to disallow certain things has the potential to break trust between the players and GM.
Ever since "6x 3d6, in order" fell out of fashion, announcing race/class intent before writing anything on a character sheet has become pretty much standard. That's when the DM gets to arbitrarily shoot down an idea.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 11:31AM
#13
|
|
|
You don't need a book to say no for you. Deny your players in your own voice, and on your own authority.
Seriously, though, you have a responsibility to do what you feel is necessary to preserve the tone of the campaign you're running. That includes putting some reasonable restrictions on character creation, and if you feel that halfling paladins with appropriately sized mounts are inherently too whimsical for the campaign you want to run, take it up with your players. They may surprise you with a bleak and compelling halfling cavalryman concept, or they might let you know up front that they're not interested in a campaign devoid of whimsy, or any number of other potentially productive responses.
In defense of that specific concept, past a certain size of dragon, any M or smaller creature charging at its kneecaps astride any L or smaller creature is pretty equally ridiculous. Rats and wasps and so forth.
"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish."
D&D Outsider
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 3:05PM
#14
|
|
|
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 3:13PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2007
|
Race/Class restrictions should be a campaign thing, not a core rules thing.
Also I hate the idea of greatly incentivizing classicial race/class combos. Though I suppose it does make playing against type the non-"munchkin' thing to do :P.
Even if they put it as an "optional rule" the player would still argue with the DM over the optional rule.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 8:27PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2001
|
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
I read this thread this afternoon and don't remember anything CoC-violating about the posts I can no longer see. Some people disagreed with the OP in very strong terms, but they attacked the idea, not the person. If someone complained about them, skins are unreasonably thin and you oughtn't have given in.
EDIT: Aaaand, as if to prove my point, what was a rather vital discussion promptly died after this.
Jeff Heikkinen
DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 8:36PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Jul 13, 2011
|
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.
I think there was a halfling Guardian to answer this situation somewhere..........
MY DM COMMITMENT
To insure that those who participate in any game that I adjudicate are having fun, staying engaged, maintaining focus, contributing to the story and becoming legendary.
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."
Gary Gygax
Thanks for that Gary, so now stop playing RAW games.
Member of the Progressive Front of Grognardia Suicide Squad
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 9:02PM
#18
|
|
|
I think restrictions like that are better left to house rules. A base game set of rules wants the players to have as many options and as free of gameplay as possiable.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 10:19PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
I think restrictions like that are better left to house rules. A base game set of rules wants the players to have as many options and as free of gameplay as possiable.
I totally agree. I once saw someone play a 1/2 orc wizard in 3rd edition. sure an orc isn't "optimized" to be a wizard, but the guy had what was, to him, a fun idea. I don't want the official rules to forbid players from trying non-traditional things and having fun the way they want to.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 11:22PM
#20
|
|
|
I never cared for racial class restrictions personally, and I don't want to see them back. It should basically be DM disgression with whatever fits in his or her campaign world, but not a part of the core rules.
|
|
|
