I agree with this entirely and was always of the opinion that they should have started with four core classes then expanded out with PrCs between 3rd and 9th levels. However, since they didn't do this, I see no reason to adjust the situation as it currently stands. If someone wants to eliminate certain requirements, they can do so by developing new PrCs...Luddite said: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
POLL should flavor restrictions be officaly errated out?
- Thread starter Dremen
- Start date
Khorod
First Post
I won't vote. Most of the flavor rules are part of what makes D&D what it is.
That does not mean you can't play a medieval fantasy d20 game.
I haven't made D&D houserules in a while- my campaigns are just over the D&D/d20 divide.
So I think for my own campaigns, the flavor needs removing or adjusting.
That does not mean you can't play a medieval fantasy d20 game.
I haven't made D&D houserules in a while- my campaigns are just over the D&D/d20 divide.
So I think for my own campaigns, the flavor needs removing or adjusting.
Last edited:
pensiv
Explorer
In light of what CTD and others have said, it could be said that the classes themselves are flavored. One could easily use a classless, or an alternate class system to make it more "generic." Luddite mentions d20 Modern and I'd like to say that what is proposed with that game seems to attempt to be "flavorless" in a way that D&D (if it is to remain D&D and not d20 Fantasy) will never be.
omokage said:
I concur. DnD is not d20 Fantasy what makes DnD is the Flavor. Specificly the Flavor of Greyhawk. I have no problems with the "Offical/Default Campaing Setting" classes having these restrictions. A Druid and Ranger mean something specific in Greyhawk (and to an extent FR.)
Now here is a something to chew on... Is someone who is using the Sacred Lands Setting playing DnD or a d20 Fantasy game....
-Luddite
Bendris Noulg
First Post
I assume you mean Scarred Lands, for which I would vote Yes, they are playing D&D (in the same manner in which Dark Sun, Planescape and SpellJammer are D&D). Just a different world with different standards.Luddite said:
For the poll, I voted No, although I personally altered much of the flavor, as I don't game in the Default Setting (nor in a setting that resembles it in the slightest).
Ravellion
serves Gnome Master
The "no" posters seem a lot more vocal. To those who refer to game balance, they should read the initial post again. The Druid weapon selection is powerful, but restricted, and doesn't make much sense either (scimitar sure, longspear no). A Paladin/Cleric would, to me, be interesting in order to play a Votary type (as in the 2nd edit Paladin splat), and WOTC even mentioned all multiclassing restrictions are there as pure flavour only.
"A dwarf Wizard wielding a dire flail and a gnome paladin of Wee Jas! Sure, come and play!"
"You are a druid with a bow? Nope, you'll have to think of something else..."
2nd edition throwbacks, and nothing else.
Rav
"A dwarf Wizard wielding a dire flail and a gnome paladin of Wee Jas! Sure, come and play!"
"You are a druid with a bow? Nope, you'll have to think of something else..."
2nd edition throwbacks, and nothing else.
Rav
Well I didn't set the poll up very well. I should have worded it a bit differently and I tried to edit it but only mods can do that.
Here is what I meant to say:
Should Wizards errata out the flavor restrictions against multiclassing for Monks and Paladins and the weapon restrictions for druids. I have read from various game designers that these restrictions were put in the game at the request of some playtesters, and that these restrictions ARE NOT balance issues but "flavor" issues. (This is alot longer than the poll allows for a question).
1. Yes, I rule zero these restrictions out.
2. No I use these restrictions.
3. I don't really care
4. Other answer
PrC's created simply to ease class restrictions can disrupt game balance fast. And if you other wise like the class and do not want to use a PrC then you are up the creek.
The one that gets me the most is the druid restriction. It is easy to get around the monk and paladin by taking what ever levels you want before or after the main class but the druid restriction is harsh and feels very arbitrary. If a chracter spend a precious feat to learn a 'forbiden druid weapon' or gave up a level of abilities or spell casting to take a lever of say ranger or fighter to learn other weapons then this is enough of a penalty.
Like i said I rule 0 this out but I feel like it should not be there in the first place.
This is not in ANY way trying to make this a classless system, but removing arbitrary restrictions that serve no game balance issues. This is not letting a wizard cast in full plate without penalty this is a totally different subject. Why shouldn't my 1/2 elf Druid / Ranger be able to fight with hand axe / dagger combo and use a bow with out loosing his powers for 24 hours. I could almost see it for a cleric useing a weapon their deity hates. But many druids don't even have a deity riding their case keeping tabs on them.
-D
-D
Here is what I meant to say:
Should Wizards errata out the flavor restrictions against multiclassing for Monks and Paladins and the weapon restrictions for druids. I have read from various game designers that these restrictions were put in the game at the request of some playtesters, and that these restrictions ARE NOT balance issues but "flavor" issues. (This is alot longer than the poll allows for a question).
1. Yes, I rule zero these restrictions out.
2. No I use these restrictions.
3. I don't really care
4. Other answer
PrC's created simply to ease class restrictions can disrupt game balance fast. And if you other wise like the class and do not want to use a PrC then you are up the creek.
The one that gets me the most is the druid restriction. It is easy to get around the monk and paladin by taking what ever levels you want before or after the main class but the druid restriction is harsh and feels very arbitrary. If a chracter spend a precious feat to learn a 'forbiden druid weapon' or gave up a level of abilities or spell casting to take a lever of say ranger or fighter to learn other weapons then this is enough of a penalty.
Like i said I rule 0 this out but I feel like it should not be there in the first place.
This is not in ANY way trying to make this a classless system, but removing arbitrary restrictions that serve no game balance issues. This is not letting a wizard cast in full plate without penalty this is a totally different subject. Why shouldn't my 1/2 elf Druid / Ranger be able to fight with hand axe / dagger combo and use a bow with out loosing his powers for 24 hours. I could almost see it for a cleric useing a weapon their deity hates. But many druids don't even have a deity riding their case keeping tabs on them.
-D
-D
Similar Threads
