D&D 5E Restrictions in D&D Next

[Li Shenron]

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.

Half of the gamers want and need restrictions to avoid a kitchen-sink type of game, but the other half hate restrictions because they don't want to feel limited or constrained to a type/style/flavor they don't particularly like.

It should be clear to every non-beginner gamer, that a RPG is MEANT to be customized. The problem is that what is written in the core has a certain aura of authority that sets expectations to everyone playing the same edition.

I think the best thing they could do in 5e is to make it clear: if they use a default setting (which I am not in favor of, but I think this is what they'll do) then they should WRITE it explicitly to every restriction that it is because of the setting. This way, it is immediately evident that it is a suggestion only, that will be probably the starting point for everyone trying out the new edition, but also that it can be easily lifted as soon as the group goes homebrew or modifies the setting.

 

[Libramarian]

It occurs to me that a heavily restrictive rules set might serve a valuable social function - it lets the GM be the good guy. Open rules, with restrictions applied by the GM, make the GM look like the bad guy. He's spoiling the fun. If it's the other way round, then the GM's a hero.

I honestly think this is a thing. I've noticed it with 1e. The game in itself is so punishing and restrictive that 95% of my house rules and rulings are in the players' favor, so I am the "good guy" much of the time. It's like good cop, bad cop. The rules are the bad cop, I'm the good cop.

 

[OmegaMan950]

Restrictions in the PHB are bad, bad, bad. The freedom of races to pick which class they want to be has been with us for 2 editions now, and has been an awesome tool in customizing characters to suit the players and even the DMs desires. It would be a huge step back if 5E were to implement racial restrictions in the PHB rather than tailoring to campaign settings.

Dwarves have always been suitable for the paladin class, and elves for the druid class, based on fictional depictions of these races (gnomes could cast spells but had to specialize as illusionists? Could they not master the basics, like some kind of bizarro idiot savants?) and a dwarf wizard isn't that odd (eg. rune style magic) despite the IMO weak arguments put forth by proponents of restrictions, and the only reason I can see it being implemented is as an appeal to tradition. Players coming in with 3E and 4E will balk at it.

The PHB is a toolbox, not a straightjack. The PHB sets a precedent in the game for the style of play and can be seen in the writing of the 1E and 2E PHB and DMG which implied a low magic roughly-medieval setting - this is not what everyone wants. Campaign settings, however, are fair game for customization and restrictions, and any restrictions put forth by PHB are going to take up space in a CS book rectifiying the changes.

Thematic restrictions in 3E and 4E (like the racial dragonmarks of Eberron) work fine without having to backtrack rules set forth in the PHB. The core 3 books are the "trunk" of the gaming tree while the campaigns are the "branches"

 

[Blackwarder]

In the end it's easier to remove restrictions that place them, it's much easier to tell you players that they can pick every thing from a certain book and talk to you if they want to change some stuff than listing all the restrictions in your campaign.

I think that's how 2e dealt with this and it worked nicely in our group, we had campaigns run by the book and than we also had campaigns that disregarded class restriction or multiclassing rules etc...

Warder

 

[prosfilaes]

I love the underlying assumption that howling at the door, beating down the entry to your home, are D&D playing barbarians who want nothing more than to ruin your game by refusing to accept the setting the DM lays out, and yet who will be instantly stopped in their tracks by a line in a book saying that they're not allowed.

I'm saying that people are much more likely to be okay with the rules forbidding their dual-weapon wielding drow CN samurai/paladin then if they bring a character they've spent four hours building and are told to make a new character. And I can't be the only one who looks at large house rules documents (unplaytested, probably ambiguous) with trepidation.

As Libramarian implied up thread, it's a lot more fun when the rules are the bad copy and the DM gets to be the good cop, then the other way around.

 

[Incenjucar]

In the end it's easier to remove restrictions that place them, it's much easier to tell you players that they can pick every thing from a certain book and talk to you if they want to change some stuff than listing all the restrictions in your campaign.

I think that's how 2e dealt with this and it worked nicely in our group, we had campaigns run by the book and than we also had campaigns that disregarded class restriction or multiclassing rules etc...

Warder

Unfortunately, this isn't actually true, for two reasons:

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. This becomes a bigger problem if certain combinations are overpowered, but prevented by these restrictions. If Chaotic Evil Feat X and Lawful Good Feat Y combine to break the game, it's going to ruin someone's fun.

2) The character builder, in its current incarnation, makes homebrewing and houseruling a potential nightmare. They CAN fix this by applying an "Alignment Restrictions" toggle, but it's not safe to assume that they will.

What they CAN do is have official recommendations that include all of the classic restrictions, with sidebars explaining their place and function in the game, but have those as a toggle-on in the CB, so that game designers don't make bad rules with the assumption that the restrictions balance those rules. Heck, they could have little symbols for each edition that they can put next to rules that best simulate those editions, without forcing any particular one down anyone's throat.

--

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.

 

[Blackwarder]

Unfortunately, this isn't actually true, for two reasons:

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. This becomes a bigger problem if certain combinations are overpowered, but prevented by these restrictions. If Chaotic Evil Feat X and Lawful Good Feat Y combine to break the game, it's going to ruin someone's fun.

Aliangment is not a restriction, it's game mechanic to an extent. Requiring Paladins to be LG, or blade singers to be elves or saying that dwarves can't be wizards is a restriction and can be disregard with minimal problems, I did it countless times by just telling my players "you can disregard race restrictions".

2) The character builder, in its current incarnation, makes homebrewing and houseruling a potential nightmare. They CAN fix this by applying an "Alignment Restrictions" toggle, but it's not safe to assume that they will.

I agree that the current CB is an home brewing nightmare, I don't see what alignment restrictions got to do with it.

What they CAN do is have official recommendations that include all of the classic restrictions, with sidebars explaining their place and function in the game, but have those as a toggle-on in the CB, so that game designers don't make bad rules with the assumption that the restrictions balance those rules. Heck, they could have little symbols for each edition that they can put next to rules that best simulate those editions, without forcing any particular one down anyone's throat.

No idea about that, as it stand we don't know enough about the rules and character creation to brainstorm about the future digital tools.

--

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.

Again, speaking only about restrictions, its fairly easy to disregard them if you want to and it bring table bickering to a minimum if you don't.

Warder

 

[Incenjucar]

Aliangment is not a restriction, it's game mechanic to an extent. Requiring Paladins to be LG, or blade singers to be elves or saying that dwarves can't be wizards is a restriction and can be disregard with minimal problems, I did it countless times by just telling my players "you can disregard race restrictions".

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.

I agree that the current CB is an home brewing nightmare, I don't see what alignment restrictions got to do with it.

Because the CB enforces restrictions. IF there is an alignment restriction toggle, this will be a non-issue for this discussion, but only IF.

No idea about that, as it stand we don't know enough about the rules and character creation to brainstorm about the future digital tools.


Again, speaking only about restrictions, its fairly easy to disregard them if you want to and it bring table bickering to a minimum if you don't.

Warder

Unless the game is balanced around restrictions and/or the tools don't allow you to easily disregard restrictions.

Granted, these remain IF statements. We don't know how they'll do things. But given historical precedent and what they've already said, it is a concern worth voicing so that we can encourage them to prevent any such issues.

I don't care if they plug alignment into the game so long as I can ignore it entirely by clicking a little radio button on the character builder.

 

[Boarstorm]

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. This becomes a bigger problem if certain combinations are overpowered, but prevented by these restrictions. If Chaotic Evil Feat X and Lawful Good Feat Y combine to break the game, it's going to ruin someone's fun.

There is truth here.

Built in restrictions propagate beyond the class/feat/etc level, requiring far more work to excise than to add.

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.

 

[B.T.]

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.

This is a problem with the players, not the rules.