D&D 5E Restrictions in D&D Next

ForeverSlayer

Banned
Banned
I just want to say that I am a big fan of restrictions such as the Paladin's Lawful Good requirement and the elf only Bladesinger, for example.

In my opinion, restrictions give certain things that touch of specialness. I don't want a game where everyone can have anything. I want alignment restrictions, I want feat restrictions and I want class restrictions.

I don't want a generic game where everything is a free for all.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Big fan.

Don't think it'll happen...but big fan.

Of course, with the advent of modularity and rules options, it should be condoned, if not encouraged, that one's [DM's] game can be set up with or without whatever restrictions the game presents.

Gonna just hafta wait n' see...n' then change things the way I likes 'em. ;)

--SD
 

And I loathe restrictions.

They give absolutes in a world designed to be limited only by our own imaginations. Just because you, or a game designer or Gary Gygax himself couldn't or didn't bother to think of a situation where a rule didn't apply doesn't mean that someone else's story and imagination should be chained in by those restrictions.

Give us the system and let us work out the details.
 

Opening up most options to be compatible with most character races or whatever =/= a generic game.

I hope that such restrictions are rare, but that they give a few historical nods to past editions by saying things like "in some campaigns, paladins must be lawful good in order to receive their special class bonuses, in addition to the normal restrictions of their code of conduct or religious affiliation. Speak to your GM about any such special restrictions in his campaign."

That way we can let most people play what they want to without feeling restricted by the rules, but we give a nod to traditionalists who want to houserule their games into having that old-school flair.
 

And I loathe restrictions.

They give absolutes in a world designed to be limited only by our own imaginations. Just because you, or a game designer or Gary Gygax himself couldn't or didn't bother to think of a situation where a rule didn't apply doesn't mean that someone else's story and imagination should be chained in by those restrictions.

Give us the system and let us work out the details.

What does "limiting your imagination" have to do with restrictions?

This is something that I have heard several times but doesn't really make sense. Let's take the Bladesinger for example. This is a class that is the epitome of elven culture. It is a class that is considered to be the highest honor in elven society. It is a secretive and guarded class that elves risk their lives to keep the techniques a secret. Now I know there could be reasons as to why but niche ideas are not the reason to open it up to everyone. So in every campaign that you play in the elves made an exception to the rule to allow you to learn the art of Bladesinging?

Am I limiting the imagination because I have a restriction that actually makes sense?

No restrictions just for the sake of it is not good game design.

I think it's better to have restrictions that can be hand waved than vice versa.
 

Are restrictions a good thing? Sure, when the DM uses them as a tool. If a DM wants to say that his dwarves can't be wizards or that characters have to follow a particular alignment to be a paladin, that can be good world-building, as long as these restrictions have a specific meaning and are used judiciously. I ban any kind of divine/psychic multiclassing and anything that involves hunting dragons. It's a good topic for the DMG.

Restrictions built into the game itself are pointless at best and counterproductive at worst.
 

I think an example like the bladesinger is less of an issue than one like the paladin for a number of reasons. It's a pretty small niche; a lot of people will want to play a holy warrior, while relatively few will passionately want to play the bladesinger (and there are other options out there which, mechanically, are similar). It was released in a splatbook instead of core. Frankly, not a lot of people care much about it.

Restricting a basic class is more onerous. Paladins having to be a specific alignment is bad enough. Dwarves not being able to be wizards at all, and things like that, are even worse. In my game, no thanks. If it were to be included I would houserule it out. My feeling is that I'm in the majority, and that my reasons for making the choice are widely held, but I wouldn't dream of dictating how your game works. That's what houserules are for.
 

I think restrictions like this work a lot better in specific settings. So if the Greyhawk setting comes out and it includes a "Paladin" class/path/whatever that's only accessible to Lawful Good humans following a certain code... awesome. And if the Bladesingers of Myth Drannor only accept elves, nobody will bat an eye.

But anything that needs to be defined that narrowly probably just shouldn't be in the core books. To me, the core books are like basic LEGO sets. They hand you a pile of pieces and you can put them together however you want.

But if you want to make Star Wars ships, there are some specialized pieces you want from the Star Wars sets. No matter how much I may need that weird sloping piece to make my Star Destroyer look right, I don't think it should go in the basic LEGO sets.

Cheers!
Kinak
 

What does "limiting your imagination" have to do with restrictions?
It has to do with the fact that I can "imagine" a character that simply can't exist due to mechanical restrictions. Not roleplaying, not story, not campaign restrictions. Just the rules written in the books.
This is something that I have heard several times but doesn't really make sense. Let's take the Bladesinger for example. This is a class that is the epitome of elven culture. It is a class that is considered to be the highest honor in elven society. It is a secretive and guarded class that elves risk their lives to keep the techniques a secret. Now I know there could be reasons as to why but niche ideas are not the reason to open it up to everyone. So in every campaign that you play in the elves made an exception to the rule to allow you to learn the art of Bladesinging?
The problem is that you've now assumed something about bladesinging. You've given it a place and a meaning. You think this makes something special . . . I think that this makes base assumptions about everyone's campaign that don't need to be there. But that's a different thread. My question is, what IS bladesinging? The art of blending music, blades and arcane magic into one. Is there some sort of genetic restriction that means that only an elf can do this? Or do the rules of the world exist in such a way that anybody trained to use the abilities can use them? But no matter, you selected a very extreme, specialized example. I can see a world where bladesingers are only elves . . . it won't chafe. But you're tying the same logic in to try and limit BASE classes, core material, the fundamental building blocks of the character design system.

To me, the ultimate example of limits for limits sake are class skill lists. Since 2e, you're severely restricted in your ability to take skills outside narrow lists of what someone thought would be appropriate for your class. Right now I'm playing a psychic warrior who grew up as an animal handler. But I don't have handle animal as a skill. Why? Because someone thought that the class shouldn't have that skill on their list, and because being able to take that skill would be SO overpowering that there should be no mechanism for adding a class skill to your list. It would be game breaking, I guess?
I think it's better to have restrictions that can be hand waved than vice versa.
And I think the opposite. It's easier to take away someone's options than it is to add them in. Because the game rules and balance should work assuming every option.

Paladins smite evil. Remove the LG restriction and what do they smite? Still evil? Or do we now have to change a rule, make up something new.

Paladins smite opposition? Install an LG restriction and . . . they still smite opposing characters. Same rules still work.
 

I just want to say that I am a big fan of restrictions such as the Paladin's Lawful Good requirement and the elf only Bladesinger, for example.

In my opinion, restrictions give certain things that touch of specialness. I don't want a game where everyone can have anything. I want alignment restrictions, I want feat restrictions and I want class restrictions.

I don't want a generic game where everything is a free for all.

Then simply have restrictions in your games.

I don't see why it's necessary to have restrictions hardcoded into the game. Hardcoding them in makes it very difficult for people who don't want them to extract them. Adding them seems much easier.

B-)
 

Remove ads

Top