D&D 5E Restrictions in D&D Next

[TwoSix]

1) Establish restrictions within the core rules.
2) In the class/theme descriptions, assert that these restrictions are there to create a feel of "classic D&D".
3) Also have a paragraph within these descriptions to explain possible common adaptations, such as "paladins of other alignments". Explain again that these restrictions have NO mechanical weight, and are there for flavor.
4) Within the new Character Builder, have an easy toggle of Restrictions (Yes/No). Ideally, a custom restriction page will also be implemented for the DM who is house-ruling.

Easy. Just make to sure to strike the right balance within the text that the restrictions aren't bad, and are there for a good reason, but if your DM lifts them, he know's what he's doing.

 

[Blackwarder]

Alignment restrictions are absolutely restrictions. In the 3E days there were quite a few discussions about how to try and get around the alignment restrictions that a large number of classes had. "X can only be Y" is a restriction.

Correct, alignment restrictions are restrictions, alignments by them selves aren't they are a game mechanic. I was referring to your point about CE feat X and LG feat Y. Now personally I never encountered alignment feats in 3e while I played it but having a feat require an alignment is no different than having it require minimum ability score, certain race or another feat.

If, for example, in my game we wouldn't want to deal with alignments than I would say that alignment restrictions are off and for your feat example I would just say that you can't take feats that are mutually exclusive in the rules...

I agree with B.T, trying to work around rules restrictions is a problem with the players not the rules because as long as your main point is having fun playing as a group and not being the jerk that ruin the game to everyone else than it shouldn't be a problem comming to a reasonable compromise.

Warder

 

[Incenjucar]

Correct, alignment restrictions are restrictions, alignments by them selves aren't they are a game mechanic. I was referring to your point about CE feat X and LG feat Y. Now personally I never encountered alignment feats in 3e while I played it but having a feat require an alignment is no different than having it require minimum ability score, certain race or another feat.

If, for example, in my game we wouldn't want to deal with alignments than I would say that alignment restrictions are off and for your feat example I would just say that you can't take feats that are mutually exclusive in the rules...

I agree with B.T, trying to work around rules restrictions is a problem with the players not the rules because as long as your main point is having fun playing as a group and not being the jerk that ruin the game to everyone else than it shouldn't be a problem comming to a reasonable compromise.

Warder

It's a superfluous game element that many people would like to see made optional. It is a restriction that needs to be optional. It's a problem with the game that I want to see dealt with in a way that allows people who like it to keep it without me having to suffer for it. The reasonable compromise is for it to be a toggle you can keep or toss at-will without having to rewrite things. The option you're defending is "use it or suck it."

 

[Blackwarder]

I played in 2e and 3e games were we specifically cut out alignment with minimal to no adverse effects and with little or no effort and I played in many 3e and 2e games were we played with alignment and alignment restrictions and had a blast but, it would be much harder to house rule them into the game than house rule them out.

Or let's put it another way, just like we could ignore alignments in prior additions with minimal effect on the game so we should be able to do in 5e.

Warder

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Not a fan of things I spend money on telling me what I can't do. A yes! but... system is much more fun, intuitive, and leads to greater storytelling over a system that yells at me whenever I try to do something.

Better get used to it is all I can say.

 

[OmegaMan950]

Some people here have had the restrictions of previous editions in their game and ignored it, they had fun and there were no problems. A lot of gamers would see the restrictions proposed here in 5E and have a problem.

If you end up ignoring the restrictions some of the time why not make it optional rather than core? If you think it's easier to ease restrictions than to impose them that's a discussion for the DM and the players.

 

[prosfilaes]

1) When a game is built with restrictions, the other rules of the game assume those restrictions. This creates an ever-increasing burden for anyone wishing to remove those restrictions.

Again; that's a powerful feature. It's what makes just adding alignment on the side as an option suck.

Personally, as a DM, I hate having to fix the rules. I like ADDING cool new things instead of doing someone else's job for them. One of the best things about D&D for me is that I can just tell people "Make a character that can get along with the other characters using whatever you have legal access to." and that's it. When people try to show me a character sheet I just shrug at them and pretend to look it over.

But that doesn't work for someone. One way or the other, some people are going to have to have houserules; the only question is who. Your "fix" of the rules breaks it for other people.

Adding restrictions is NEVER more difficult than saying "Elves can't be paladins!" or "Only Chaotic Neutral Paladins in my world!"

Removing restrictions often involves altering/removing class features, spells, feats, and more.

If adding restrictions in an organic way was trivial, then removing them should be trivial. If removing restrictions involves altering/removing class features, spells and feats, then adding them should involve all the same things. Else you're just tacking something on to the system, not integrating it with the system.

 

[Incenjucar]

Again; that's a powerful feature. It's what makes just adding alignment on the side as an option suck.

Even when personal playstyle preferences are not an issue, balancing based on alignment has a history of causing problems. Adding restrictions is incredibly easy in comparison. Adding a system of benefits for adhering to an alignment is also incredibly easy. Stripping it out of entire classes is much more difficult.

But that doesn't work for someone. One way or the other, some people are going to have to have houserules; the only question is who. Your "fix" of the rules breaks it for other people.

Only people with an aversion to other people having options or who cannot make lists.

If adding restrictions in an organic way was trivial, then removing them should be trivial.

If that was true then fishooks wouldn't be very useful.

If removing restrictions involves altering/removing class features, spells and feats, then adding them should involve all the same things. Else you're just tacking something on to the system, not integrating it with the system.

Rebalancing and reprogramming are required to remove, unless WotC does it for us; making a list is required to add. A DM making a list is much easier than a DM rebalancing character options and then hacking the character builder.

 

[FireLance]

I wonder if one possible solution would be to call out certain restrictions and prerequisites as flavor, just to make clear that there is no mechanical problem with lifting it, for those who want to.

So, the bladesinger class might have "Flavor restriction: Must be an elf, eladrin or half-elf".

The paladin class might have "Flavor restriction: Must be Lawful Good".

The Eberron Mark of Healing might have "Flavor prerequisite: Halfling".

Specific campaigns might also have a list of flavor restrictions for the campaign.

For example, a "classic AD&D" flavored campaign might have the following:

Dwarf race flavor restriction: Cannot take a class with the arcane power source.
Ranger class flavor restriction: Must be Good
Assassin class flavor restriction: Must be Evil
Monk class flavor restriction: Must be Lawful
Druid class flavor restriction: Must be Unaligned

 

[Incenjucar]

WotC can put in whatever restriction it wants, just so long as you can hit a toggle in the CB and not break the game by doing so.

If they do so, they can put restrictions on every single element of the game if they want.