Rant: Flavor restrictions
- Thread starter Dremen
- Start date
The whole idea is to not have to make extra house rules.
I feel these restrictions are not needed and arbitrary. There are ways to get around the monk / paladin m.c. problem. PrC's pick up the levels you want in aother class before or after takingthe restricted class etc. But there is no such loophole for Druids in the core rules. Sure I can rule zero it but some people refuse to make what they feel as extra house rules and then there is the official problem.
Most of the time it does nto come up. But sometimes I like to play instead of DM and the only choices I have may at the time be an offical game or with a Dm who doesn't rule zero these out. If the restrictions made sense that would be one thing but they don't.
To further the whole thing nearly every PrC mentions than monks / paladins who take it (thoose PrC's that are aimed at these classes) can multiclass with it freely. OA even removed the monk m.c. restriction. So it seems to me that many of the designers didn't even want thoose restrictions in there but some play testers wined enough and they pu them in as official core rules. All I want them to say is "Well we made a mistake, these are olny ideas you might want to impliment for flavor in your campagin."
Because the idea is to not have to make house rules. Other than this little thorn I have very little bad to say about 3e. I think the rule you can be tripped if you fail your trip attack is silly. But I is a great system.
-D
I feel these restrictions are not needed and arbitrary. There are ways to get around the monk / paladin m.c. problem. PrC's pick up the levels you want in aother class before or after takingthe restricted class etc. But there is no such loophole for Druids in the core rules. Sure I can rule zero it but some people refuse to make what they feel as extra house rules and then there is the official problem.
Most of the time it does nto come up. But sometimes I like to play instead of DM and the only choices I have may at the time be an offical game or with a Dm who doesn't rule zero these out. If the restrictions made sense that would be one thing but they don't.
To further the whole thing nearly every PrC mentions than monks / paladins who take it (thoose PrC's that are aimed at these classes) can multiclass with it freely. OA even removed the monk m.c. restriction. So it seems to me that many of the designers didn't even want thoose restrictions in there but some play testers wined enough and they pu them in as official core rules. All I want them to say is "Well we made a mistake, these are olny ideas you might want to impliment for flavor in your campagin."
Because the idea is to not have to make house rules. Other than this little thorn I have very little bad to say about 3e. I think the rule you can be tripped if you fail your trip attack is silly. But I is a great system.
-D
Deadguy
First Post
LOL!!mouseferatu said:Oh, and in response to the monk/druid concept--I must admit, that's a multiclass I never thought of. I like it. A lot.
But I have this image of a high-level character using wild shape, and I'm picturing a dire bear standing there in kung-fu stance, paws up, giving a good old-fashioned Bruce Lee "Wwhuaaaaaaahhhh!!!!"
I admit that I just made up teh idea of the Monk/Druid off the top of my head (I was trying to think of something different to the Monk/Sorcerer and the Monk/Cleric, both of whom had been mentioned already).
But I like the idea of the monkish wildshaper! If that doesn't scare them, I don't know what will?!
Monk/Druid is a great roleplaying class -- you're limited a bit by the fact that both classes are Back-Loaded, with the really cool abilities being up at levels that multiclassers will never see, but there are some nice perks.
If you can get the sickle/kama thing going, you're good. If not, the ability to cast Greater Magic Fang on yourself is pretty cool. A Monk who can cast GMF and Barkskin is a pretty handy fellow. Good utility man, in terms of skills.
Roleplaying-wise, though, it's a dream... The perfection of the body through complete understanding of the world in which the body lives. Your body as a force of nature. Lofty thoughts about good and evil put aside to concentrate on the true path to enlightenment, the path of training, meditation, and disciplnie.
-Tacky
If you can get the sickle/kama thing going, you're good. If not, the ability to cast Greater Magic Fang on yourself is pretty cool. A Monk who can cast GMF and Barkskin is a pretty handy fellow. Good utility man, in terms of skills.
Roleplaying-wise, though, it's a dream... The perfection of the body through complete understanding of the world in which the body lives. Your body as a force of nature. Lofty thoughts about good and evil put aside to concentrate on the true path to enlightenment, the path of training, meditation, and disciplnie.
-Tacky
Roland Delacroix
First Post
Deadguy said:
LOL!!
I admit that I just made up teh idea of the Monk/Druid off the top of my head (I was trying to think of something different to the Monk/Sorcerer and the Monk/Cleric, both of whom had been mentioned already).
But I like the idea of the monkish wildshaper! If that doesn't scare them, I don't know what will?!
Gives 'Tiger Claw Attack!' a whole new meaning............
Crothian
First Post
mouseferatu said:But I have this image of a high-level character using wild shape, and I'm picturing a dire bear standing there in kung-fu stance, paws up, giving a good old-fashioned Bruce Lee "Wwhuaaaaaaahhhh!!!!"
There'sa classic Canadian Comercial of a Bear who fights like that in defense of his fish. It was very funny.
Jeremy Ackerman-Yost
Explorer
takyris said:
Where did that definition of enligtenment come from? I was under the impression that enlightenment was supposed to bring with it compassion for all beings (i.e. it's definitively Good).
Which, to bring this back on the topic of role-playing restrictions, is an irritant of mine. In my mind, druids are Good, not Neutral. And Barbarian societies were often VERY lawful. Really, the only alignment restriction that makes sense to me is the paladin's. Supposedly, monks need to be lawful because discipline is required. But can't a person who believes that individuals are much more important than the society (a Chaotic trait) also be disciplined? Heck, there are whole philosophies based around those two ideas. If you use the society vs. individual version of Law vs. Chaos, druids are definitively Lawful. And if monks are Lawful because they need discipline, what about wizards? Guys who learn to cast spells through study and research don't need great discipline? And, despite the obvious cultural flaws, Barbarians are Chaotic because they Rage? So a Lawful Cleric or paladin couldn't go into a Holy Rage when witnessing an atrocity?
The whole Law-Chaos axis is such muddy water that having restrictions based around it is sadistic.
Holy Avengers?
I got the impression that the Holy Avengers from Sword & Fist were the closest thing to non-LG paladins.
I DM more than play, but I did create a 1st level Paladin of Wee Jas before I'd read more about her. I think he's going to have to leave her service before he gets too many more levels, therefore losing all his paladin powers - c'est la vie, it will give him an interesting flavour and I don't mind, so long as the DM can take that into account in determining the adventures he will or won't be a part of.
I think the idea was that, with the array of powers that even low level paladins and monks get, that people needed to have a certain commitment to them. There's a bit in one of the splatbooks about this, isn't there?
I got the impression that the Holy Avengers from Sword & Fist were the closest thing to non-LG paladins.
I DM more than play, but I did create a 1st level Paladin of Wee Jas before I'd read more about her. I think he's going to have to leave her service before he gets too many more levels, therefore losing all his paladin powers - c'est la vie, it will give him an interesting flavour and I don't mind, so long as the DM can take that into account in determining the adventures he will or won't be a part of.
I think the idea was that, with the array of powers that even low level paladins and monks get, that people needed to have a certain commitment to them. There's a bit in one of the splatbooks about this, isn't there?
Similar Threads
