Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="OmegaMan950" data-source="post: 5918431" data-attributes="member: 49115">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"</blockquote>

Verification