D&D 5E Restrictions in D&D Next

[billd91]

I believe that one of the reasons some people didn't grokk to 4e is that it seemed to be geared to a very specific (tactics-centric) game style with very specific game world assumption (*cough* Tieflings *cough*).

But another significant one was that things didn't "feel like D&D." I don't think that complaint was leveled just at the powers structure (though that drew a lot of ire). Unaligned paladins took more than a few digs as well. Paladins may have had analogs in various side materials to match other alignment extremes, but the paladin itself is a LG paragon of truth, justice, and the Superman big blue boy scout way.

And perhaps on a less positive note but one that nevertheless underlines the essence of the LG paladin identity in D&D, what's more iconic in the D&D fan community than arguments about paladin codes and falling paladin traps set by DMs?

 

[Lwaxy]

Because as a player I'm SO adverse to asking for exceptions to rules for my characters that I didn't ask. I get that it makes it my fault in a very large way . . . *snip*

Good point about staying within the rules, same here.

I was more wondering about your GM, because I automatically "fix the skills" for characters to fir the background. Well, unless someone comes with a silly story to justify having every skill as a class skill.

I'm tempted to remove class skills as such.

 

[Cadfan]

About restrictions-

1. If you think that the flavor of a class at your game table is dependent on the way that I play the class at MY game table, you're roleplaying wrong. You want Class X to be rare, and you're bothered that my game table has eight players all playing it? Cope. You're not at my table, its not your business.

2. If you want to play classes according to the flavor of the class, then by definition you don't need a restriction forcing you to do it.

3. The only time a restriction provides a meaningful impact on the game is when one player doesn't want to follow it, and other players want him to. And I don't need the rules of a game to resolve what is essentially an interpersonal dispute.

 

[Surmos]

About restrictions-

1. If you think that the flavor of a class at your game table is dependent on the way that I play the class at MY game table, you're roleplaying wrong. You want Class X to be rare, and you're bothered that my game table has eight players all playing it? Cope. You're not at my table, its not your business.

2. If you want to play classes according to the flavor of the class, then by definition you don't need a restriction forcing you to do it.

3. The only time a restriction provides a meaningful impact on the game is when one player doesn't want to follow it, and other players want him to. And I don't need the rules of a game to resolve what is essentially an interpersonal dispute.

Love this answer.

Restrictions should be table dependent. I agree that restrictions makes classes more "special" but this game is being made for as many players as possible and their different tastes. For some players they would like to play without certain inherent restrictions.

This is a PERFECT example of an option to give DMs for their game.
Forever Slayer are you saying you want this as an option or you want this to be the inherent rule for it? Because if this is an option I hope this doesn't deter you from playing. I mean.... Why would it? You could put whatever restriction you wanted on the rarity on classes our their alignment choices.

 

[Umbran]

Hardcoding them in makes it very difficult for people who don't want them to extract them. Adding them seems much easier.

I don't think that's generally true.

If the restriction is used to create game balance - say, if the paladin is restricted to LG, so that his behavior will keep his massive holy power in check - then we might say it is difficult to remove. We'd still be wrong, because removing it is as simple as the GM saying, "That restriction does not hold!" What may be difficult is removing the restriction and not having the resulting character be unbalanced. And that's only an issue if you care about that sort of thing.

If the restriction is not part of the balance in play, then it is no harder to remove it than it is to add it.

 

[Wiseblood]

I don't think that's generally true.

If the restriction is used to create game balance - say, if the paladin is restricted to LG, so that his behavior will keep his massive holy power in check - then we might say it is difficult to remove. We'd still be wrong, because removing it is as simple as the GM saying, "That restriction does not hold!" What may be difficult is removing the restriction and not having the resulting character be unbalanced. And that's only an issue if you care about that sort of thing.

If the restriction is not part of the balance in play, then it is no harder to remove it than it is to add it.

I agree with Umbran. I'd XP him but gotta spread it around a bit.

 

[Mattachine]

If restrictions are so easy to remove without affecting game balance, then why have them at all?

The game should provide archetypes and suggestions. Particular game worlds should have particular restrictions, perhaps.

 

[prosfilaes]

3. The only time a restriction provides a meaningful impact on the game is when one player doesn't want to follow it, and other players want him to. And I don't need the rules of a game to resolve what is essentially an interpersonal dispute.

Restrictions help set the table for the game, even if no one is thinking about playing that. You prohibit dwarven wizards, you encourage people to think about a world where dwarves don't have arcane magic. You have LG paladins that smite evil, you're setting up a game where good fights evil. You have 1e level limits, and you inspire people to think of a human dominated world.

And if someone does want to play a CN paladin, the easiest place to forbid it is upfront. Most people will accept a restriction like that pretty easily, but if they invest the time and emotional energy into making up a rules-legal CN paladin, they're much more likely to get upset about this sudden change in the ground rules.

 

[slobster]

If the restriction is not part of the balance in play, then it is no harder to remove it than it is to add it.

Yes and no. It's no more difficult for the GM, perhaps. But for the player it makes things potentially more difficult, especially if they are playing with a new GM who would rather fall back on the printed rules than make a judgement call themselves. I'm guilty of doing this back when I was GMing my first ever game when 3.0 was just coming out.

There is a definite tendency, in my experience, to let the book make the call, even if it should in principle be the easiest thing in the world for the GM to say, "Ok, it doesn't affect game balance in play and your character concept would clearly be well served by using the paladin class but being neutral good, and we'll use the stats for the longsword but call it a katana."

I wouldn't hesitate to do that these days if it would help one of my players get their character off the ground, but back in the day I would have adamantly opposed it because . . . it didn't say that in the book. And I was young .

So I hope DDN errs on the side of few restrictions, and making them explicitly optional.

 

[B.T.]

2. If you want to play classes according to the flavor of the class, then by definition you don't need a restriction forcing you to do it.

The game mechanics define how the game works within the game world. Mechanics should work with flavor, not against it. Thus, if the flavor of the bladesinger is a special elven style of magic and spells, then the bladesinger's mechanics should reflect this.

Furthermore, it is easier to lift a restriction than it is to impose one. If a player comes to my table and asks, "Can I play a dwarf bladesinger?" it is easier for me to open options to him by saying yes than it is for him to come to the table expecting to play a dwarven bladesinger and then for me to shoot him down.