POLL should flavor restrictions be officaly errated out?

[Khorod]

Rule 0: I am rewriting many of the classes to be my generic list. I then will rule 0 back in flavor setting by setting.

 

[RobNJ]

Foul! There need to be more options. I would have, if I could, voted:

3) They don't need to be there but there's no point in errataing them out since just because you read it doesn't mean you have to use it.

 

[Theuderic]

The answers should be YES or NO you shouldn't have your little comments attached to them. You are not producing a fair poll.

 

[Gizzard]

I voted "no". I'm willing to Rule Zero a lot of flavor restrictions if someone brings me a good reason or a good backstory, but I think that the restrictions are a good default for a campaign.

For instance, the Monk and Paladin restrictions reflect the idea that these classes take their calling very seriously; you cant just wander away and pick up a couple levels of Rogue because you feel like it. Master Po will boot you from the Shaolin Temple when he discovers your disgraceful lack of discipline. So I understand the flavor reason here, it makes good sense.

Basically, what I worry about as a DM is people taking classes or races and then playing them as a generic jumble of stats. "I am a Hobbit because I want +2 DEX". Umm, yeah, thats great. "I am a Paladin because I want a special Warhorse at 5th." Grrr.

As such, I'd be more willing to let a Monk multiclass into Sorcerer if a player were to write up a couple paragraphs about an interesting organization thats devoted to blending the fighting discipline of the Monk with the mental powers of the Sorcerer (and how her character came to discover this organization). But if she just wants it "because then I can cast Mage Armor on myself" then I will say "nope".

-edit-

It is easy to get around the monk and paladin by taking what ever levels you want before or after the main class...

This is a good example of the sort of thing I am talking about. If you try this trick in my campaign Master Po is going to have some sort of interview with you before he lets you join the Temple. If you are sincere in pursuing the Path of Monkly Enlightenment, you are in. If you just want to get Stunning Fist and Evasion then you are out on your ear. (Although there may be a LE Temple somewhere which is not so choosy. ;-)

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I've never viewed D&D as a real "generic fantasy game". It's got certain quirks that are part of the game IMO. Dwarfs shouldn't be wizards in D&D, paladins shouldn't mulitclass, etc. Next thing they will replace the Vancian magic system. Maybe they should do a book called d20 fantasy?

 

[Theuderic]

I agree with you Gizzard. The restrictions should be kept in place. It would not make a good default. If a DM wants to do this sort of thing what is stopping him? Surely you don't need an offical statement from WOTC in the rule books saying so. I for one am thinking about running a 3rd E campaign set in Greyhawk. Now I know a lot of people will think this is crazy, but I'm going to use the same class/race restrictions as in First Edition AD&D. The reason why is because this is the style of the campaign I wish to run. I don't think I will have many objections if any at all. I believe most people are willing to accept these things that the DM puts forth. If not then play in another campaign. So there are 2 restrictions that you don't agree with. Big deal. You know what you can do as DM. Do it. YOU are the final arbiter of the game! You have absolute power! What you don't like change. What you do like keep. DONT be a slave to the rulebook! Remember DMs SHOULD tweek the game to make their games more personalized. If you don't like the restrictions it's easy: get rid of them on your own.