POLL should flavor restrictions be officaly errated out?

[Dremen]

Should WotC post official errata removing the flavor restrictions from Monk / Paladin multiclassing, druid weapon restrictions, and rangers not being able to take their own race as favored prey (think 2 human nations at war these rangers are cultural based).

Thus opening up offical games like LIVING GREYHAWK.

EDIT:

This is for restrictions that WotC put in for FLAVOR (thier words not mine) NOT game balance. I have no problems with issues for game balance, that is a different topic entirely.

 

[Ravellion]

I think your poll answers are slanted. I voted yes, but not for the reason given. I vote yes because these restrections inhibit the system as semi-universal. What other DMs do, is their prerogative. 3rd printing PHB would then have a sidebar with common restrictions.

Rav

 

[The Serge]

I voted no.

It's been my observations that most people will change these things because they really aren't interested (or capable) of playing the class as is... They often want all of the nice components associated with the class without the balancing restrictions.

Furthermore, the presence of Prestige Classes can overcome some of the issues that most people seem to have with these more "restrictive" classes. If there is a human to human war that involves some Rangers, make up a Prestige Class that addresses that fact. If you want a Druid type that can use more weapons, either create a god that is Nature affiliated who takes Clerics or create a Prestige Class that broadens the weapon selection.

As for rule 0 and all that, I have no problem with a DM adjusting things to suit his or her campaign. However, I believe most will find (as I did) that making adjustments without thoroughly reviewing the totality of the impact leads to imbalance. Paladins are not weak at all, despite the "flavor restrictions." They are immune to fear, they are immune to disease, they have the potential to receive a huge increase in all of their saves, they have a fantastic spell selection (particularly if one uses all the resources out there), they can wear any kind of armor and use any kind of weapon... Why open it up anymore than that?

 

[Fenes 2]

"Flavor restrictions" is a subjective term. Is the "Wizards cannot use all simple weapons" also flavor? What about the alignment restrictions of a Bard? Just because the reason is "spiritual oath" in one occasion and not enough time outside in another it does not mean one ios flavor and the other not.
I think every DM should have to judge for him- or herself what restriction are kept, and what restrictions are dropped, but one should not drop all those flavor restrictions from the beginning. Often one PC is fine without those restrictions, but another would be unbalanced.

Better let us vote WHAT restrictions should be dropped.

 

[Buttercup]

I can't really vote, because you don't have a "It doesn't matter to me, I run my game the way I like" option.

But, it doesn't matter to me, because I run my game the way I like.

 

[HellHound]

I won't vote.

I don't agree that they should be errated out, but not for the reason you indicated on the poll.

 

[CTD]

I voted no.

IMO, if you want to vote yes you might as well vote to move D&D to a classless system.

The point of the restirictions is to make the classes different and therefore 'special'. As a DM I don't rule 0 these restrictions out. Heck, I usually rule 0 more restirictions in.

Additionally, as someone else said, with the abundance of PRC's out there, it's quite easy to pick one up to balance out the class drawbacks. Depends on your DM as to it being allowd, but that's another topic really.

Better wording/more options would be great.

Perhaps:

Do you rule 0 out class restrictions?
1. Yes, always
2. Sometimes
3. Rarely
4. Never

To give a bit more space for those who might drop one restriction on one class, but are fine with the others. Also it would give you more "yes" answers overall

{edited because using the proper form of "to be" are hard}

 

[Desdichado]

This poll isn't set up very well. Why do you give reasons in your answers? Just let them be yes or no.

Frankly, if the reason to do it is to open up Living Greyhawk, where the restrictions originated and thus make sense, that's a dumb reason. And for homebrew where DMs can modify such restrictions all they want, it doesn't really matter.

So my answer is no, but not because they are widely used and liked, which I don't believe to be true.

 

[Arnwyn]

Fenes 2 and CTD have echoed my sentiments very well.

I'd also like to add that I don't see a problem as it stands right now. I'd be concerned with the removal of *all* flavor restrictions, and (possibly) getting a completely flavorless video-game result. Aren't RPG products (rules-based or otherwise) supposed to facilitate a fantasy role-playing game? Lumping too much on the DM (without the books to help and guide) isn't usually appreciated by DMs who are overworked as it is.

As well, I think players and DMs are competent enough to remove the restrictions that don't suit them. I'd also assume the Living Greyhawk "officials" would make whatever changes would suit the game (and, especially, the World of Greyhawk) best. Officially making them errata will likely have few benefits, IMO.

 

[Luddite]

What is Flavor? Those items that are not "generic" or "univerisal" across campaing worlds.

To that extent I find the following classes to be "Flavor" :
They present only a limited way to consider the class.

- Barbarain
Just a fighter with some cultural flavor. The are Illiterate and can not be Lawful.

- Monk
An special unarmed fighter that must be Lawful.

- Paladin
A fighter that must have a "Code of Conduct" and must be LG.

- Ranger
The one presented in the PHB is a ranger, but not what I envision when I think of ranger. But it is just another Fighter with a gimick.

- Druid
A Cleric that worships "Nature" instead of a Diety.

- Bard
A rogue with some gimicks

So simply anything but Fighter, Rogue, Cleric or Magic-User (Sor/Wiz) is flavor. Flavor Classes should of been made in to PrCs. In away, Wizards is moving to this concept in d20 Modern. Your character starts off a some very generalized type (based on one stat) then focuses to some type of profession (advance classes) and then has the option to specialize on a few ablities (presteige classes)

If I were to re-write DnD , I would do something like what d20 Modern is looking to do. For Level one you pick one of the four fundemental classes. At level three you would be albe to start one of the "Flavor" classes. Then around 7 to 10, the character could consider prestige classes for extra specialization.

-Luddite