D&D 5E Restrictions in D&D Next

[Sunseeker]

Restrictions give campaign flavor, but add little in the core rules. If the Bladesinger class exists in multiple worlds, why is it universally limited to elves? Sure, it's cool to think that the elves in one world may keep their secrets but why does this hold true in other worlds?

If you want to restrict your own game, that's easy to do, but it's difficult to remove restrictions, especially when they're hard-coded into digital tools. It's simple to tell your players that only elves can be bladesingers, it's no so easy to tell the character builder that your home game allows dwarves to be bladesingers.

I really don't see how restrictions benefit the base rules. If a class isn't special without saying that you have to be a super-spechul snowflake while playing it, then that class has issues.

 

[prosfilaes]

Another example with alignment: alignment is a naturally restricting system. It limits options. If it's incorporated into the base system, simply removing it isn't very easy. The baseline assumptions extend to magic, magic items, interactions with creatures and NPC's, etc. Simply removing it is tantamount to fighting an infestation of vermin. It's meticulous, painful, and time consuming...and one can't always be sure you've found every aspect of the rules that needs to be changed. However, adding alignment restriction can list all aspects that need to be changed, and you're aware of them from the start.

I see that as a double edged sword. Yes, alignment is a pain to remove. At the same time, that's because alignment is real in D&D. It's everywhere, it touches every part of the game and it's noticed. Any easily removed or added alignment system would feel tacked-on. Everywhere you have an alignment based spell or ability now, the developers would have to come up with an alternative or more likely, do without the alignment basis. Alignment would feel like an optional addition, not something that's seriously part of the game world and rules.

On another issue, optional systems are problematic, especially that close to the heart. They won't be optional for DMs who run premade campaign settings, particularly with premade adventures. The last thing WotC wants is a Greyhawk that's incompatible with Forgotten Realms, so all of WotC's stuff is going to take the same view on that optional system. They can try to split the difference and accommodate the options everywhere; they'll be hearing about wasted pages until the end of days, and the complainers will have a point.

Ultimately, if alignment is optional, you'll either find yourself having to strip it out yourself from all non-core material, or it will get little to no support in non-core material. It's not in practice going to be all that optional for most DMs.

It's a lot easier to make things like psionics and incarnum optional, but if you're running D&D 3 with them, you'll find that either psionics and incarnum are unheard of outside the PCs, or you have to put a lot of work into adding them to the game world. It does make a difference whether those things are standard or optional for people using them.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The argument that it's hard to add or remove restrictions fairly weak. I don't think that's an argument for or against having them in the core rules

I agree with you, I think it's fairly easy to either add or remove restrictions. For instance a DM could houserule that any race can be a bladesinger without further modification, just rename the dworf version to 'hammeryeller', and the orc version to 'macewailer'. It would be equally easy to require that paladins be lawful good in 4e.

The exception is if there are balance considerations. In 1e, one might have to come up with a code of conduct for lawful evil paladins, and it could be tricky to allow magic-users to use swords without giving them some sort of accompanying penalty.

 

[underfoot007ct]

Well the Bladesinger was in 4th edition and in 4th edition everything was considered core. Even the description said that it should be elves, half elves and eladrin only but it didn't have the restriction built in.

Totally incorrect! Most of the 4e books are not core but supplements, which is what "Neverwinter-Campaign-Setting" is. Which is where you would locate the Bladesinger class. The word supplement, not core, is clearly printed on the covers, please check the Amazon.com link below.


[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Neverwinter-Campaign-Setting-Dungeons-Supplement/dp/0786958146/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337549454&sr=8-1"]Amazon.com: Neverwinter Campaign Setting: A 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons Supplement (4th Edition D&D) (9780786958146): Matt Sernett, Erik Scott De Bie, Ari Marmell: Books[/ame]

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Totally incorrect! Most of the 4e books are not core but supplements, which is what "Neverwinter-Campaign-Setting" is. Which is where you would locate the Bladesinger class. The word supplement, not core, is clearly printed on the covers, please check the Amazon.com link below.


Amazon.com: Neverwinter Campaign Setting: A 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons Supplement (4th Edition D&D) (9780786958146): Matt Sernett, Erik Scott De Bie, Ari Marmell: Books

I'm sorry but you are wrong. Everything in 4th edition was considered core, that was their stated philosophy. I don't care if Amazon calls it a supplement. Anyway, a supplement is an "addition", it doesn't mean it's optional.

 

[Drowbane]

...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.

Paladin being a "basic" class is something I have never cared for. Back in 2e and earlier Paladins were special, because you had to be "this high" (minimum stats, including a 17 Cha!, and Lawful Good). In 3e and later, Paladins were just "Cleric-lite", who also had to be L/G. Sure, I've seen a lot of people play 3e paladins, but they all eventually saw that Cleric did it better if it wanted to.

In my campaigns, Paladin is a title. Perhaps to be represented in my 5e as a Prestige Class, that a player/character will have to *earn* to enter, not just fill out these feats, BA, and other requirements.

I stopped using Class Skills back in 3.0. Pointless restrictions are pointless. Guess what? This change for my games did not invalidate the Rogue or make anybody else "broken".

As to racial / alignment restrictions... I don't care what the rules say. As DM I will make it fit *my* vision either way (and/or change to suit my players wants).

 

[CM]

Restrictions like "Strict Code of Honor" and "Vow of Poverty" and such should be themes available to all classes with appropriate mechanical and RP drawbacks and benefits rather than nailed on to a particular class.

I always wanted to play a bladesinger with a paladin-like code of honor. Unfortunately my opportunities to play (as opposed to DM) are few and far between.

As for racial and other alignment restrictions, I'll say the same thing as in the paladin thread: Leave that to the DM and campaign setting to determine. Make the core as generic as possible.

 

[CM]

Well the Bladesinger was in 4th edition and in 4th edition everything was considered core. Even the description said that it should be elves, half elves and eladrin only but it didn't have the restriction built in.

Exactly as it should be.

 

[underfoot007ct]

I'm sorry but you are wrong. Everything in 4th edition was considered core, that was their stated philosophy. I don't care if Amazon calls it a supplement. Anyway, a supplement is an "addition", it doesn't mean it's optional.

Please provide a link to such rubbish. I can accept what you say, or I can accept what I can see what is in print. Hum, not a difficult choice. I doubt someone at the printers change the word core to supplement.

The word "addition" would mean supplement not core, maybe you need a dictionary.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm sorry but you are wrong. Everything in 4th edition was considered core, that was their stated philosophy. I don't care if Amazon calls it a supplement. Anyway, a supplement is an "addition", it doesn't mean it's optional.

Something else I hope is chucked into the fire along with 4e...