Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ForceUser" data-source="post: 2038370" data-attributes="member: 2785">You know, this statement annoys me to no end. What's wrong with half-orc paladins? Dwarven wizards? Elven barbarians? Gnome bards? One of the tropes I absolutely hated about previous versions of D&D--and never paid attention to anyway--was race/class limitations. Sure, dwarves might naturally gravitate towards the professions of cleric, fighter and rogue, but it's that rare dwarven sorcerer than stands out as a unique individual. To unilaterally rule that no dwarf can ever be anything but a cleric, fighter or rogue is patently absurd and clearly artifical, and as such, is a big steaming pile of syphilitic elephant poo!3E is all about breaking boundaries and deconstructing the most annoying sacred cows from previous editions of the game. There is nothing wrong with allowing paladin as the half-orc's favored class--so long as the designer has a clear story goal in mind, relevant to his campaign setting, when he makes that decision. Similarly, bard makes perfect sense for the gnome when compared agains the other core classes--the fact that bards are charismatic doesn't have any bearing on whether they are tricksters or not. If you look at the bard's spell list, they are designed to bear the burden of "trickster" quite nicely, loaded with enchantments and illusions as they are. Not to mention, some of the most charming scoundrels from books and film are top-notch tricksters as well.I grant you that illusionist is a fine choice for a gnome, but no more so than bard. Let's shake off the shackles of mental limitations from previous versions of the game, and instead find inspiration in the wide range of possibilities that 3E breathes life into.</blockquote>

Verification