Race/ Ability/ Alignment Class Limitations
- Thread starter paladinm
- Start date
Ed_Laprade
Adventurer
Its not that I don't want class restrictions, I don't want Classes! (Not that I'm ever going to get my wish with D&D.)
As for the Paladin question, yes they should be restricted to LG. Not that other alignments can't have exactly the same type of class, they just need to be called something else. Blackguard, Dark Knight, whatever. (Although I'd raise an eyebrow, at least, at a Chaotic faux-paladin.)
Why can't an assassin be Good? If other characters can slaughter Evil creatures and be Good, why can't there be an assassin who does the same, just one at a time and for money? (Of course, the real problem with any alignment system has always been that different people interpert them differently.)
As for the Paladin question, yes they should be restricted to LG. Not that other alignments can't have exactly the same type of class, they just need to be called something else. Blackguard, Dark Knight, whatever. (Although I'd raise an eyebrow, at least, at a Chaotic faux-paladin.)
Why can't an assassin be Good? If other characters can slaughter Evil creatures and be Good, why can't there be an assassin who does the same, just one at a time and for money? (Of course, the real problem with any alignment system has always been that different people interpert them differently.)
No, no, and maybe. Alignment restrictions might make sense in some cases. Race restrictions are okay for a campaign world but not for the general rules. Ability score restrictions, especially in environment where the scores are rolled, are just bad design. Either you roll poorly and don't get to play what you want, or you badger the DM into letting you re-roll until you get what you want, or the DM just forgoes the rolling and gives you what you want so that you won't be badgering him or her. 3e/4e had the right idea in having classes give a benefit for a high score in X without requiring it.
DogBackward
First Post
No. There should be no restrictions on what combinations you can play in the core rules. You can restrict whatever you want in your campaign, with a minimum of effort. But restricting things in the rules themselves leads to stifled creativity and people who can't play what they want to play. The only reason to limit class/race/alignment combinations is due to campaign-specific story elements, which not everybody who plays the game is going to be using.
And as most players will tell you, many GM's will simply run the rules straight from the book, no changes allowed. It won't matter if there's in in-game reason for the restriction or not: the book says no Dwarven Wizards, so you can't be a Dwarven Wizard.
It's far easier to add what you want to a modular system than it is to remove what you don't want from the baseline rules.
And as most players will tell you, many GM's will simply run the rules straight from the book, no changes allowed. It won't matter if there's in in-game reason for the restriction or not: the book says no Dwarven Wizards, so you can't be a Dwarven Wizard.
It's far easier to add what you want to a modular system than it is to remove what you don't want from the baseline rules.
The Shadow
Hero
I think we can say with confidence that there will be no ability score requirements in 5e.
We know that classes will give a stat boost - the fighter will give Str +1, for example. This is a totally different approach to ensuring that characters of a given class will have appropriate stats - and one I like far better.
Rather than the dice dictating what you can play, you decide what you play and the rules help you play it.
As for the other restrictions... Race restrictions should be campaign-dependent, they should not be baked into the rules. Alignment as far as I'm concerned can just be ripped out entirely - but if it stays, the word 'paladin' should be reserved for Lawful Good divine champions. Other such champions may exist, but they should be called something else.
We know that classes will give a stat boost - the fighter will give Str +1, for example. This is a totally different approach to ensuring that characters of a given class will have appropriate stats - and one I like far better.
Rather than the dice dictating what you can play, you decide what you play and the rules help you play it.
As for the other restrictions... Race restrictions should be campaign-dependent, they should not be baked into the rules. Alignment as far as I'm concerned can just be ripped out entirely - but if it stays, the word 'paladin' should be reserved for Lawful Good divine champions. Other such champions may exist, but they should be called something else.
Kobold Avenger
Legend
I think all alignment restrictions should have absolutely no place in 5e except for stuff involving individual DM choice.
And Chaotic Evil Paladins are perfectly fine with me. And they can easily say, "Evil Paladins are typically known as Blackguards."
And it's an absolute waste of space having to come out with another 8 classes for other holy warriors of other alignments, and then having to come out with feat support, prestige class/paragon path support and so on. Same thing with wasting space to have a separate class for Chaotic Monks and Lawful Barbarians.
And Chaotic Evil Paladins are perfectly fine with me. And they can easily say, "Evil Paladins are typically known as Blackguards."
And it's an absolute waste of space having to come out with another 8 classes for other holy warriors of other alignments, and then having to come out with feat support, prestige class/paragon path support and so on. Same thing with wasting space to have a separate class for Chaotic Monks and Lawful Barbarians.
howandwhy99
Adventurer
Racial restrictions...
...I can see ways to remove every one of these without further ado. Another idea however could be using race to further define a class's scope. Then race defines some of what it means to be that particular race/class combination, but this borders, like all things limiting by race, on being prejudiced.
Alignment restrictions...
...can really be defining of class. Are there lawful thieves? What do thieves lose if they become lawful is probably the more important question. Same with assassins. Monks are lawful, but what would happen if they were to quit their order and not start another? Rangers and Druids, like every subclass, are more focused than the core classes. Plus, they do not follow their historical archetypes. The whole Druidic religion in D&D was about balancing the other forces at work in the world, nature was simply part of their domain and allies in doing so. I think Rangers were their lawful warriors, maybe Bards a neutral prestige class. Anyways, I don't see alignment restrictions as a horrible game element if alignment is tracked, say like tracking the hobbits in the LotR board game. Paladins are really the only class with a hardline alignment restriction as they could never become Paladins again after any alignment change, but then they are extraordinarily hard to qualify for and the hardest class to play bar none (look at their class level XP totals for starters).
Ability Score restrictions...
...Multiple Ability score Dependency (MAD). If you know 3.x, then you know how this can be a problem. Back when ability scores were rolled this entire issue was removed by placing minimums on the scores needed to capably perform a non-SAD class. Core classes were easy to perform, so easy I don't think they even need AD&D's 9 in the prime requisite. However, every subclass had MAD issues and these were resolved via A.S. restrictions. These are in no way play limitations like with race or alignment. These were simply the scores pragmatically required to capably play the class. Don't qualify? Roll again.
...I can see ways to remove every one of these without further ado. Another idea however could be using race to further define a class's scope. Then race defines some of what it means to be that particular race/class combination, but this borders, like all things limiting by race, on being prejudiced.
Alignment restrictions...
...can really be defining of class. Are there lawful thieves? What do thieves lose if they become lawful is probably the more important question. Same with assassins. Monks are lawful, but what would happen if they were to quit their order and not start another? Rangers and Druids, like every subclass, are more focused than the core classes. Plus, they do not follow their historical archetypes. The whole Druidic religion in D&D was about balancing the other forces at work in the world, nature was simply part of their domain and allies in doing so. I think Rangers were their lawful warriors, maybe Bards a neutral prestige class. Anyways, I don't see alignment restrictions as a horrible game element if alignment is tracked, say like tracking the hobbits in the LotR board game. Paladins are really the only class with a hardline alignment restriction as they could never become Paladins again after any alignment change, but then they are extraordinarily hard to qualify for and the hardest class to play bar none (look at their class level XP totals for starters).
Ability Score restrictions...
...Multiple Ability score Dependency (MAD). If you know 3.x, then you know how this can be a problem. Back when ability scores were rolled this entire issue was removed by placing minimums on the scores needed to capably perform a non-SAD class. Core classes were easy to perform, so easy I don't think they even need AD&D's 9 in the prime requisite. However, every subclass had MAD issues and these were resolved via A.S. restrictions. These are in no way play limitations like with race or alignment. These were simply the scores pragmatically required to capably play the class. Don't qualify? Roll again.
