Race/ Ability/ Alignment Class Limitations

[paladinm]

One of the things that always intrigued me in the older versions of D&D was how race and/or ability scores disqualified a character from certain classes. In order to be a paladin, one originally had to have a CHA of 17 or more, be human and lawful good alignment. A ranger had to be human (and later elf or half elf) and have a boatload of good scores. Even if the game allowed other classes to be paladins or rangers, ability scores still played a factor. A dwarf or half-orc is typically uncharismatic and so would likely never make paladin. Elves would not usually have a high enough CON to be rangers. Yada yada..

I know that 3.x eased up most of these kind of restrictions, and 4e basically through them all out. Since we are talking about reincorporating old-school concepts, should class restrictions be among them? If so, which ones? I personally have no problem with a less-than-charming character being a paladin; but the thought of a dwarven wizard just seems wrong.

Any thoughts?

 

[dkyle]

I want absolutely none of that in 5E mechanics. Especially not Alignment restrictions.

And since I abhor rolling stats, ability restrictions wouldn't make much sense for a point-buy system.

Those kinds of restrictions are trivial to houserule, so much so that I don't think modules for them are even necessary.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

The majority of people here will say no. And in most cases I agree with them. Such restrictions are more setting based, so if they exist, that's where they should be found.

But there are exceptions. The Paladin is one of them, since being Lawful Good is the defining feature of being a Paladin (though there is debate on that point).

Classes that have restrictions make sense. They're called Prestige Classes, and they're intrinsically tied to the flavor of the world. Unearthed Arcana had prestige class variants for the Paladin and similar classes, and I would like to see that become the standard. Or, at least something like it.

Another method would be to make the Paladin be a talent list, theme, or alternate class option for the Fighter with similar restrictions. The name of the mechanic doesn't matter. What matters is the idea that a Fighter who meets the setting requirements can become a Paladin.

Base classes and races, though, should have no limitations.

 

[paladinm]

I sort of agree, but a chaotic evil paladin is just wrong. A paladin is not just a religious fighter, he is a champion of good. And a lawful thief??

 

[Lanefan]

Personally, I don't mind some basic restrictions (e.g. Dwarves don't do arcane casting) as long as there's some benefit in return (e.g. Dwarves get +2 saves vs. arcane magic).

As for alignment, there's a few basic restrictions that make sense (e.g. Assassins cannot be Good) but no real need for most of them. Paladins are a corner case in that the archetype specifies an alignment and the class doesn't really work very well outside that alignment (except LE, the "Black Knight" idea).

As for ability restrictions, I don't mind these at all. Then again, I'm not fond of point-buy or array ability generation: rolling reflects the randomness of real life, where some people are qualified to do things others are not.

Lanefan

 

[dkyle]

I sort of agree, but a chaotic evil paladin is just wrong. A paladin is not just a religious fighter, he is a champion of good. And a lawful thief??

The main reason I oppose alignment restrictions is that I dislike alignment as anything other than a roleplaying aid.

A Paladin that considers himself Chaotic Evil might be "wrong", but what about a Paladin that considers himself Lawful Good, worshiping a Lawful Good diety, that other characters would consider Lawful Evil, worshiping a Lawful Evil diety? And why is it that Paladins are always Lawful Good, and not simply matching the alignment of their diety? Why shouldn't Chaotic or Evil dieties have stalwart warriors of their faith?

And is Robin Hood really not "Lawful"? Sure, he breaks the laws of the land. But he upholds his own code of honor. Does that not count? Should the classic Lawful Good Paladin who breaks the insane and unjust laws of an evil tyranny he's currently in the borders of be seen as behaving Chaotically?

 

[Yora]

I sort of agree, but a chaotic evil paladin is just wrong. A paladin is not just a religious fighter, he is a champion of good. And a lawful thief??

A thief is not actually a thief. Just someone specialized in stealth and overcoming security measures.
And lawful doesn't actually have much to do with laws. It's more about Order in thought and action.

 

[dkyle]

Personally, I don't mind some basic restrictions (e.g. Dwarves don't do arcane casting) as long as there's some benefit in return (e.g. Dwarves get +2 saves vs. arcane magic).

But that's balancing the wrong things. We don't play "a Race". We play a character. And a Dwarven character has no actual penalties in this case, because simply not being a caster isn't a "penalty" (at least it shouldn't be, unless the system is deeply flawed and brings back caster supremacy). So the benefit isn't really balancing out any penalty. No character is both penalized by the restriction, and rewarded by the benefit.

If Dwarves do get +2 saves vs. arcane magic, then it should be to balance out bonuses other races get, or penalties a character that actually has that bonus would be subject to.

 

[Sunseeker]

I have no desire for racial or class restrictions.

I'm kinda wishy-washy about alignment restrictions, in the cases of holy or unholy characters, I don't really agree that you can worship a god of one alignment and be the opposite alignment. I tend to favor the "one alignment away" rule in my own games.

But overall, the fewer restrictions and more choice provided will make for a better game.

 

[Grazzt]

One of the things that always intrigued me in the older versions of D&D was how race and/or ability scores disqualified a character from certain classes. In order to be a paladin, one originally had to have a CHA of 17 or more, be human and lawful good alignment. A ranger had to be human (and later elf or half elf) and have a boatload of good scores. Even if the game allowed other classes to be paladins or rangers, ability scores still played a factor. A dwarf or half-orc is typically uncharismatic and so would likely never make paladin. Elves would not usually have a high enough CON to be rangers. Yada yada..

I know that 3.x eased up most of these kind of restrictions, and 4e basically through them all out. Since we are talking about reincorporating old-school concepts, should class restrictions be among them? If so, which ones? I personally have no problem with a less-than-charming character being a paladin; but the thought of a dwarven wizard just seems wrong.

Any thoughts?

I don't mind them honestly, as a player or DM. If they are core (and I doubt they will be since 3e tossed most all out), cool. I can ignore them if I don't agree with some of them. If they aren't core, it's pretty easy to go "Ok. No dwarven wizards." Or, "You need a Cha 17 to play a paladin."

Either way, I can hand wave them one way or the other (as I did in 3e to some extent). My players are cool with it. We all grew up on 1e, maybe that's why, but who knows.