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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6096487" data-attributes="member: 92511">What, I think, you're asking and people are getting at...is that the D&D Lore was initially (through 1e at least, 2e also maybe?) the cultural affinity for magic was built in to the classes available to races and racial level limits.This got lost in the "I wanna, I wanna, and you can't tell me I can't" of later editions where everyone can be anything they like and advance unhindered by the [albeit intrinsically "bigoted" if fantastical elves and dwarves were real] limits of race. I applaud the sensibility...but at the same time, it alters/removes the inherent flavor of most of the races. Very few people complain that elves can be great wizards...but want to complain if their dwarf can't do/be the same or their gnome can be a great illusionist but can't be a [or as powerful a] necromancer or even a "general" wizard, etc...I guess my point is there was something to the initial idea of racial class and level limitations, it was an automatic flavor to the culture if x race could be ABC class but only y level in D or B or A...which now seems to be the most heinous kind of restriction you could ever suggest to many players.  I fluctuate on the subject. I see the benefit/appreciate the fluff of the one side...but simultaneously appreciate the "everything open to everyone, race doesn't matter" options...But the lore of what culture or race was good at which kind of magic was intrinsic to [and significantly more limited in] the Basic/B-X/BECMI/and, at least, 1e and UA versions of the game.</blockquote>

Verification