green slime said:
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.