D&D 5E Restrictions in D&D Next

[El Mahdi]

I'm sorry but you are wrong. Everything in 4th edition was considered core, that was their stated philosophy. I don't care if Amazon calls it a supplement. Anyway, a supplement is an "addition", it doesn't mean it's optional.

I agree. It was stated this way from the start, and continued to be this way throughout. It's especially obvious with DDI as an assumed central component of 4E (assumed by WotC). Everything from all the books is there in DDI...undifferentiated as to core, supplement or optional...leading to the correct assumption that WotC considers everything 4E as core.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I agree. It was stated this way from the start, and continued to be this way throughout. It's especially obvious with DDI as an assumed central component of 4E (assumed by WotC). Everything from all the books is there in DDI...undifferentiated as to core, supplement or optional...leading to the correct assumption that WotC considers everything 4E as core.

Correct! Even material from Dragon magazine was considered core.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Something else I hope is chucked into the fire along with 4e...

I agree 100%

 

[Falling Icicle]

I just want to say that I am a big fan of restrictions such as the Paladin's Lawful Good requirement and the elf only Bladesinger, for example.

In my opinion, restrictions give certain things that touch of specialness.

I understand where you're coming from, and I agree that restrictions can be flavorful. But I think that it's important that the core rules be as open and flexible as possible. Flavorful restrictions and niche roles, like LG-only paladins and elven bladesigners, IMO are best served being part of specific campaigns and settings rather than being set in stone as part of the core rules.

In your world, maybe paladins can only be LG. In my world, maybe all gods can have their divine champions under the paladin class umbrella. Maybe in your world bladesigners are all elves. In my world, maybe bladesigners are halfling desert nomads. Neither one of us is "wrong", so the core rules should support both of our styles of play.

 

[howandwhy99]

On the one hand, I generally don't want the game system dictating setting to me. I build my own worlds, thank you very much, and I don't see why they should necessarily have to resemble Greyhawk.

I really liked your post overall. I think I simply see things differently than you on this point (and then only as to what the game is, not about building a campaign world.)

For me, the entirety of the game rules define setting. I don't feel I need to use them all, but they are there to speak of the world. As such they restrict by defining, but in another light they define ability and so create more freedom by defining.

The paladin thread referred to class restrictions. My thinking is a Paladin is even a more defined [sub-class of] Fighter. It is even more setting specific just as Samurai would be too.

But nothing is setting non-specific whether it be the core classes or hit points or the ability scores and saving throws. They all define the setting one is adventuring in.

 

[B.T.]

Please provide a link to such rubbish. I can accept what you say, or I can accept what I can see what is in print. Hum, not a difficult choice. I doubt someone at the printers change the word core to supplement.

The word "addition" would mean supplement not core, maybe you need a dictionary.

I can't find an exact quote from WotC, though there was a dust-up when it was first announced because it was (rightly) perceived as a moneygrab from WotC. I can, however, quote Amazon.com:

Monster Manual 3: A 4th Edition D&D Core Rulebook

Player's Handbook 2: A 4th Edition D&D Core Rulebook

Player's Handbook 3: A 4th Edition D&D Core Rulebook

Monster Manual 2: A 4th Edition D&D Core Rulebook

If you doubt the veracity of this, it is printed on the front of the books themselves.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/078695390X/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books"]

[/ame]

 

[Sunseeker]

Exactly as it should be.

There's really nothing wrong with the game saying "this class is usually only available to elves, eladrin, and half-elves(who presumably grew up in elven society)" There is a suggested restriction, but not a hard-coded one. Folks who agree with the restriction implement it and execute it. Folks who don't aren't limited by some arbitrarily applied limitation.

But the suggestion that this class is best fitted towards a specific theme, race, background, setting, or whatnot remains, allowing players of all sorts to adopt it, or not, as they choose.

And isn't that the point of 5e? To allow modularity? If we're going to run around saying X can only be Y, or Z can only be F, then that isn't modularity.

 

[herrozerro]

I can't find an exact quote from WotC, though there was a dust-up when it was first announced because it was (rightly) perceived as a moneygrab from WotC. I can, however, quote Amazon.com:

If you doubt the veracity of this, it is printed on the front of the books themselves.

im not quite sure what you are implying, yes, the PHB, MM and DMGs are core books, but the powers books, AVs and pretty much everything else is a supplement.

DDI was mentioned, yes the default search in DDI is everything but you can differentiate between specific rulebooks, rulebooks, printed adventures, dragon or dungeon articles and even minature set rules.

the character builder? when you go to make a character it asks you if you want to make a character for FR, Ebberon, darksun, home campaign or encounters.

What is this about everything is core?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

There's really nothing wrong with the game saying "this class is usually only available to elves, eladrin, and half-elves(who presumably grew up in elven society)" There is a suggested restriction, but not a hard-coded one. Folks who agree with the restriction implement it and execute it. Folks who don't aren't limited by some arbitrarily applied limitation.

But the suggestion that this class is best fitted towards a specific theme, race, background, setting, or whatnot remains, allowing players of all sorts to adopt it, or not, as they choose.

And isn't that the point of 5e? To allow modularity? If we're going to run around saying X can only be Y, or Z can only be F, then that isn't modularity.

Your example has nothing to do with modularity. An engine is an example of modularity because you can take it apart and then reassemble it.

Modularity is the degree to which a system's components may be separated and recombined.

Now you could separate the racial restriction from the Bladesinger because of the power the game gives you as a DM and then put it back when you so choose.

 

[hbarsquared]

Yes, house-ruling restrictions are pretty easy to do.

Adding the restriction "paladins must be LG" for generic paladins is probably just as easy as removing the restriction "paladins must be LG" to generic paladins.

Including such restrictions reinforces the flavor of D&D, I think. D&D does have it's own twist on many, many things and I think it's important to keep that.

With that said, it is too easy to fall into the trap of "I cannot do this" when you have those restrictions.

I personally would rather see (and this is not said in offense toward the "pro-restrictionists") no listing of restrictions, with sidebars/fluff of the core D&D world and suggestions for adding restrictions to suit individual campaigns and groups.

If I want to create a LN paladin devoted to civilization, I would like to do so without feeling like I'm "breaking the core rules of D&D."

If I want to create a dwarf that was taken in by elves at a young age and trained in the ways of bladeslinging, I would like to do so without feeling like I'm "play D&D wrong."

So, I have to say I would rather D&D be restrictionless, with plenty of example, options, and modules for how restrictions can add to your game.