No More Multi-Classing

[Reynard]

But unless you have a good explanation why it should be simply impossible to become a wizard if you're a dwarf, it's an arbitrary ruling.

Just becasue something is physically possible in the world doesn't mean it should be an option open at the table. If you were running a pirate game, would you allow a deep gnome dungeoneer in the party? If you were running a intrigue-heavy, Reinessance -era historical fantasy, would you allow someone to play a Monk? Or, to hew closer to the original example of the dwarven wizard, would you allow a player to take the role of a halfling shugenja in a LotR campaign?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Just becasue something is physically possible in the world doesn't mean it should be an option open at the table. If you were running a pirate game, would you allow a deep gnome dungeoneer in the party?

I wouldn't allow any dungeoneer, since it's a pirates game. I wouldn't say "deep gnomes cannot be dungeoneers, but humans can be everything so go ahead and make a human dungeoneer in my pirates game.

If you were running a intrigue-heavy, Reinessance -era historical fantasy, would you allow someone to play a Monk?

Franciskan, capuchin, and the like, yes? How do dwarves figure into this?

Or, to hew closer to the original example of the dwarven wizard, would you allow a player to take the role of a halfling shugenja in a LotR campaign?

I wouldn't let them take the role of a shugenja of any race in a LotR campaign, halfling or otherwise.

Your excamples completely miss the point. It's not about banning or allowing some classes altogether, it's about forbidding some races the use of certain classes.


Say I allow elves, dwarves, halflings and humans in my pirate campaign, along with fighters, rogues and clerics. You could play an elven fighter, an elven rogue, an elven cleric; a dwarven fighter, dwarven rogue, or dwarven cleric. And so on.

In a historical earth campaign, there would be only humans, of course, and they could of course play any class. But then again, this example is even worse than the others.

In the LoTR campaign, there'd probably be Hobbits, Dwarves, Elves (several kinds), and Humans, and the PHB classes sans cleric and wizard. Each race could take each class.

 

[drothgery]

Very cool, dro. You should start up a thread in HR and extrapolate on that - it'd be a very interesting read on your take on D&D

Hmm... I may just do that, but keep in mind this is all just scribing on a message board; I'm not the DM for my group, so playtesting things will be a bit tough. The really hard part is building spell lists; I'm not sure whether I'd want to start from existing psionic powers (because the mechanics are right, but a lot of things have to be scratched, a lot of spells would need to be converted, and they'd need to be recategorized), existing spells (because the flavor is right), or from the ground up.

 

[Reynard]

Say I allow elves, dwarves, halflings and humans in my pirate campaign, along with fighters, rogues and clerics. You could play an elven fighter, an elven rogue, an elven cleric; a dwarven fighter, dwarven rogue, or dwarven cleric. And so on.

First of all, I like the fact that you picked the three classes from the editions which resticted race/class combos that were available to all races.

Anyway, I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion on whether the DM has the right to restrict player choice in order to enforce a certain tone, genre or implied setting. That's fine. Different strokes and all that.

But I think a DM does have that right. I think a DM can say "dwarves can't be arcane casters" because dwarves, in the game he wants to run, just don't act like that, don't feel like that and on't improve the setting by being arcane casters. (Again, just an example -- you could easily say the same thing about elves and divine casters.)

This goes back to one of my main points in starting the thread: players often feel entitled to create whatever they want in wehatever way they want, because they are players and they bought the PHB and complete warrior, etc... I, on the other hand, think that if you agree to sit down and play a game in a certains tyle with a certain tone and a certain set of basic assumptions, you should agree to whatever restrictions help reinforce that style and tone and those assumptions.

 

[Fenes]

This goes back to one of my main points in starting the thread: players often feel entitled to create whatever they want in wehatever way they want, because they are players and they bought the PHB and complete warrior, etc... I, on the other hand, think that if you agree to sit down and play a game in a certains tyle with a certain tone and a certain set of basic assumptions, you should agree to whatever restrictions help reinforce that style and tone and those assumptions.

That's why having one or two sessions where you just discuss the upcoming campaign in the group, and create the characters together, is a good thing.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

First of all, I like the fact that you picked the three classes from the editions which resticted race/class combos that were available to all races.

Works the same way with wizard: If there are wizards (ship's wizards, and so on), the dwarves and halflings can become wizards just as well as the humans and elves.

Anyway, I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion on whether the DM has the right to restrict player choice in order to enforce a certain tone, genre or implied setting. That's fine. Different strokes and all that.

But I think a DM does have that right. I think a DM can say "dwarves can't be arcane casters" because dwarves, in the game he wants to run, just don't act like that, don't feel like that and on't improve the setting by being arcane casters. (Again, just an example -- you could easily say the same thing about elves and divine casters.)

That's lazy, and certainly not good dungeonmastering: saying because dwarves "just don't feel like that", they are physically unable to cast spells. Most dwarves may think like that, but not all. Those who are different might pick up wizardry, even if their whole race will cast them out. Saying that all dwarves think like that and there's never an exception is just plain nonsense.

you should agree to whatever restrictions help reinforce that style and tone and those assumptions.

Sensible restrictions can reinforce assumptions, as do exceptions to the rules. It's okay to say that dwarves are only very rarely wizards because it marks them as outcasts. It's also okay to say that dwarf wizards either disguise their crafts very carefully or are outcasts, never being able to amount to anything within the prejudiced dwarf society (so if you want to do it, know what you'll be dealing with). But saying that they just don't is not good world-building.

 

[green slime]

Sensible restrictions can reinforce assumptions, as do exceptions to the rules. It's okay to say that dwarves are only very rarely wizards because it marks them as outcasts. It's also okay to say that dwarf wizards either disguise their crafts very carefully or are outcasts, never being able to amount to anything within the prejudiced dwarf society (so if you want to do it, know what you'll be dealing with). But saying that they just don't is not good world-building.

I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. Why should all available PC races be able to take any class? Why is this a natural assumption at all? If PrC can be restricted to certain races, cultures, and regions, why can't classes? Why is this (unqualified statement of opinion from you): "not good world-building".

I personally very strongly believe in having classes be available along racial lines. It reinforces a certain flavour, IMO.

IMC, humans from the Empire may be fighters, paladins, clerics, wizards, and rogues. The foul Humans of the Eastern Wastes may be fighters, hexblades, clerics of the god of Death, dread necromancers, rogues, or beguilers. Centaurs are barbarians, rangers, and druids. Fey have other specific classes, as did the dwarves (but the dwarves are all extinct anyway) and the Lizardfolk.

As player, you shouldn't just decide upon levelling to grab a level of X without some heavy in game justification. I enforce a training time for switching to a new class. You just don't pick up a level of Barbarian because you spoke a few times with your Centaur buddy.

Given the multitude of possible arcane/divine/psionic magics available within the D20 system, why shouldn't it be like this? Enforcing a cultural/racial flavour in order to build a more rich world, rather than a bland mix of everything?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. Why should all available PC races be able to take any class?

Why shouldn't they? What keeps them from taking those classes?

If PrC can be restricted to certain races, cultures, and regions, why can't classes?

Because prestige classes are prestige classes, and classes are classes. Prestige Classes have prerequisites (that's what's makes them a PrC), classes don't.

Why is this (unqualified statement of opinion from you): "not good world-building".

Because it's an arbitrary restriction. "It's restricted because I say so".

I personally very strongly believe in having classes be available along racial lines. It reinforces a certain flavour, IMO.

Then do the logical thing: Encourage or disgourage certain combinations. Okay, so most dwarves distrust and hate arcane magic. Fine. So it just has no place in their society. But why shouldn't a dwarf be able to learn if he wants to? Go take a human teacher? Leave his race's prejudice and stubborn ways behind and do what he wants. Or do you intend to say that every single dwarf thinks the same? Every last one? Without the possibility that one thinks differently?

They're not outsiders. They're humanoids. Free will and everything.

So discourage all you want. Tell players wanting to play a dwarf wizard that they won't be welcome in their home city (or however dwarves call the holes they live in), or by their fellow dwarves. Tell them they either have to keep it secret from everyone or abandon their race.

As player, you shouldn't just decide upon levelling to grab a level of X without some heavy in game justification.

That's not the same as "it is just plain impossible for a dwarf to ever become a wizard"

Given the multitude of possible arcane/divine/psionic magics available within the D20 system, why shouldn't it be like this? Enforcing a cultural/racial flavour in order to build a more rich world, rather than a bland mix of everything?

I'm not talking bland. I'm talking about senseless arbitrary restrictions, rules limits to describe social circumstances.

What you want is, in a way, in the PHB.

PHB, page 55, Wizard->Races:

Dwarf and halfling wizards are rare because their societies don't encourage the study of magic

It's even in the core rules. Some combinations are rare because of social stigma and the like. But the game has evolved beyond senseless rules restrictions based on social stigma and the like.

 

[green slime]

Because there may be other things other than mere "social stigma" at work.

It may be deemed physically impossible for a race (rage, for instance). (why/why not is not "arbitrary", it is designed to provide flavour for the barbaric peoples.)

The two cultures may have a thousand year history of on-going warfare between them, so you just don't turn up in town and grab yourself "a human teacher". If a race has fought elves for 2000 years, and carefully guarded their form of magic, why should you, as a non-member of that race, be allowed access?

I see it as a problem in DnD that every race is so pally-chummy friendly. It all becomes very bland.

I fail to see why "race" is a valid, non-arbitrary restriction for PrCs, but is a non-valid, arbitrary restriction for a class.

Cultures should encourage equipment choices (armour, weapons), classes, PrC, and feat selection. IMO. Purchasing exotic equipment from outside a cultural zone should be more expensive. Acquiring a class from outside a cultural zone should require in-game reasoning , and may not even be possible. Why should the alien mindset of the non-emotional Lizardfolk, be conducive to the manipulative magics of the Human Empire's enchanters and transmuters?

There is the question of when is a choice really a choice, and when does it just become the illusion of a choice? If a race is such that it really makes a very bad choice for a fighter, what is the point in allowing the fighter class as a "choice" at all? Is it not better to spend the time as a DM to offer a different, race-specific class that instead fills up that gap instead? By your definition, this is "not good world-building". When ½-orcs really suck as sorcerers, is it a great loss removing that choice? And how is that a greater loss than removing ½-orcs altogether?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

It may be deemed physically impossible for a race (rage, for instance). (why/why not is not "arbitrary", it is designed to provide flavour for the barbaric peoples.)

Then do away with the barbarian class, introduce rage as a racial feature, or turn it into a PrC.

The two cultures may have a thousand year history of on-going warfare between them, so you just don't turn up in town and grab yourself "a human teacher".

It's not like I was saying that it should be a piece of cake. I didn't say that the players shouldn't come up with a decent description, but making arbitrary limits isn't the way to go, either. The human teacher could be a traitor, outcast, or similar.

Two races at war, and two friends from different sides working together, hunted by both - don't tell me you never heard that.

If a race has fought elves for 2000 years, and carefully guarded their form of magic, why should you, as a non-member of that race, be allowed access?

What If I took it? I was lucky, or powerful, or found a traitor, or whatever. I could come up with a good story.

I see it as a problem in DnD that every race is so pally-chummy friendly. It all becomes very bland.

Are we talking about the same game? I'm talking about Dungeons and Dragons Third Edition Revised, often called "D&D 3.5e" for short.

You seem to think that you can't have a middle ground. Either everyone loves everyone else, and it's one big Care Bear d20, or the ruleset itself is acting racist.

I fail to see why "race" is a valid, non-arbitrary restriction for PrCs, but is a non-valid, arbitrary restriction for a class.

Let me explain it to you: Virtually every restriction is arbitrary in a base class. They represent very general roles to fill. For roles special to some races or organizations or whatever, use PrCs

There is the question of when is a choice really a choice, and when does it just become the illusion of a choice? If a race is such that it really makes a very bad choice for a fighter, what is the point in allowing the fighter class as a "choice" at all?

Tools, not rules. 3e is built on that principle. No more dumb restrictions "because", only choice - and consequence.

Is it not better to spend the time as a DM to offer a different, race-specific class that instead fills up that gap instead? By your definition, this is "not good world-building". When ½-orcs really suck as sorcerers, is it a great loss removing that choice? And how is that a greater loss than removing ½-orcs altogether?

I'd go on about overcoming all the odds and stuff like that, but this tires me. I think we have to agree to disagree. You seem to like AD&D's restrictive rules very much, which I always considered lazy.