Alexemplar
First Post
Since nobody really cried foul when Dark Sun killed off all the Gnomes and did away with Paladins, I would say no.
D&D 5E Is infinite diversity in infinite combinations .... a terrible thing in D&D?
Since nobody really cried foul when Dark Sun killed off all the Gnomes and did away with Paladins, I would say no.
hawkeyefan
Legend
I don't think that for a specific published setting that it's as big a deal. Most of the time, I'd expect someone to know what game and setting they're going to play, so their expectations should be set. I don't always agree with all such restrictions....for instance, I don't think that Dark Sun having gnomes or not makes any significant difference to the setting. And I say that as somone who has little to no love for gnomes. But players for such a game will approach it with the expectation "we're gonna play some Dark Sun", and so they'll know that some options will be off the table, and others will be altered.
But if it's a homebrew game, and the DM has decided that there are no tieflings, no drow, no dragonborn, and that there are level limits to how far elves can progress in any class but wizard, and dwarves are limited to fighter and cleric, and so on....that seems a bit more arbitrary. Because most folks would approach a homebrew game as "we're gonna play D&D" so they would assume that the options presented in the PHB would be open to them. Taking that away is a pretty extreme alteration from what's expected.
And in cases like that, the DM may have told the players what to expect, or may have even created a home brew document to serve as a campaign guide or primer. And that's great....it helps align expectations. But even in cases like that, I think that most such restrictions still seem arbitrary. No gnomes isn't really much of a defining characteristic for a setting. No elves or no humans would be more significant, and probably more thematic.
I think it boils down to not being self-centered. Players should realize when their idea for a PC doesn't fit the game world that the DM is presenting. On the other hand, the DM needs to own up to the fact that his restriction of "no drow" isn't about anything other than his personal taste. Both sides need to be willing to compromise a bit. There's not just one person at the table.
But if it's a homebrew game, and the DM has decided that there are no tieflings, no drow, no dragonborn, and that there are level limits to how far elves can progress in any class but wizard, and dwarves are limited to fighter and cleric, and so on....that seems a bit more arbitrary. Because most folks would approach a homebrew game as "we're gonna play D&D" so they would assume that the options presented in the PHB would be open to them. Taking that away is a pretty extreme alteration from what's expected.
And in cases like that, the DM may have told the players what to expect, or may have even created a home brew document to serve as a campaign guide or primer. And that's great....it helps align expectations. But even in cases like that, I think that most such restrictions still seem arbitrary. No gnomes isn't really much of a defining characteristic for a setting. No elves or no humans would be more significant, and probably more thematic.
I think it boils down to not being self-centered. Players should realize when their idea for a PC doesn't fit the game world that the DM is presenting. On the other hand, the DM needs to own up to the fact that his restriction of "no drow" isn't about anything other than his personal taste. Both sides need to be willing to compromise a bit. There's not just one person at the table.
Wiseblood
Adventurer
I feel the restrictions informed the canon of the published worlds. What made the worlds like Athas special wan't just the setting but a reordering of restrictions.
In a 2e game I ran my friend was a halfling multiclass Wizard/Assassin. Restrictions were lifted by the DM. Just as DM's can impose them.
Alexemplar
First Post
This sounds about right.
What classes/races/options are and aren't available needs to feel like it serves some higher theme/goal that players can buy into than "I have a mostly personal issue with X/Y/Z."
I have a homebrew in which Elves/Dwarves/Gnomes/Halflings/Orcs/Goblinoids are notably absent, but that's also because it's very much styled after antediluvian Atlantis-style fantasy as opposed to any disdain. In their place, I have Yuan-Ti, Genasi, Tieflings/Aasimar, Goliaths, and other such races playing a much larger role than is common in D&D, but not because those are my favorite races.
* Individual campaigns can have whatever limits they like; IDIC should be available in the base game, because playing against expectations or type can be fun for some.
* Where there are conceptual hurdles (halflings with 3' rapiers, etc.) it's not because diversity exists, but because rules for size or weapon damage have been kept vague or inadequately formed. That's a problem with those rules (if it's seen to be a problem at all), not a problem of the availability of diverse combinations.
* Where there are conceptual hurdles (halflings with 3' rapiers, etc.) it's not because diversity exists, but because rules for size or weapon damage have been kept vague or inadequately formed. That's a problem with those rules (if it's seen to be a problem at all), not a problem of the availability of diverse combinations.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
While I disagree with just about everything else you've said in this thread I just have to give you props for this.
That said, AD&D only had 7 races (Human, Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Halfling, Half-Elf, Half-Orc) and that's always been enough - and some would argue it's one more than enough as they send the Gnomes packing...
Made my save...disbelieved. Whew!BoldItalic said:
I really have to ease off on those mushrooms...
Lanefan
Tony Vargas
Legend
Thing is, no one table is going to use all those rules. So, if you have a severe nut allergy to another player's nutty character, and you just cannot manage the symptoms in any way other than being a jerk to him, worst case (and we're already talking kinda a worst case, as most people aren't that mutually intolerant and disrespectful), you or he finds another table that's more amenable - or, if all else fails, you two may actually have to talk it out. Find some common ground and understanding.
I know it's easier if the other guy just isn't there because his favorite character type has been permanently excluded from the official game with extreme prejudice and he's been forced out of the community to the PF compound or a 13A commune or whatever. By the same token, if whatever you were so uncompromisingly intolerant of were forced to be played at every D&D table in the world, it'd be a lot easier on that hypothetical other guy, too.
But, choosing one of you isn't supposed to be what 5e was about. It /is/, de-facto, at the moment, but it wasn't supposed to be.
To be fair, it's not just female and/or halfling fighters that are deficient.
And it famously didn't go so well when the then-newly-released edition left said Gnomes out of the PH.That said, AD&D only had 7 races (Human, Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Halfling, Half-Elf, Half-Orc) and that's always been enough - and some would argue it's one more than enough as they send the Gnomes packing...
Last edited:
Remathilis
Legend
"When consistency gets in the way of samurai gunslingers riding on dinosaurs, it's time for consistency to take a day off."
- [MENTION=812]barsoomcore[/MENTION]
- [MENTION=812]barsoomcore[/MENTION]
Similar Threads
