Restrictions on races and classes.

[Minigiant]

The things a character can't do are just as important as what he can't. Chance of failure and inability to attempt are two very important parts of a role playing experience.

Some of these "bad at X" and "can't Y" are often tied to race and class. So which weakness, inabilities, flaws, deficiencies, and areas of lacking would you like placed on certain races and classes with a heavy investment of resources or special combination.

For example I want small races, like halflings and gnomes, to be weaker or limited with basic weapons attacks in some manner. They can focus on other aspects of combat such as defense, mobility, and ambush or get the damage from another source like magic or sneak attacks.

Halflings can't wear magic shoes. It irritates their feet.

Wizard's can't heal living humaniods. They could turn someone into a construct, heal the construct, then turn them back. But the extra steps are required.

Squishy classes, like wizards and sorcerers, have glass jaws. Unless they have a high Constitution or take some other costly method to boost HP, they can't take many hits. Even when shapeshifted.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

For example I want small races, like halflings and gnomes, to be weaker or limited with basic weapons attacks in some manner. They can focus on other aspects of combat such as defense, mobility, and ambush or get the damage from another source like magic for sneak attacks.

I want small races to have zero natural reach. I'm tired of D&D's child-sized ape-armed warriors!

 

[Li Shenron]

[MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION] I like the idea of having restrictions, including all your examples, but there are some traditional restrictions I don't like...

For example I always thought that the forbidden schools for wizard specialist didn't make any sense. I mean, you can multiclass into Sorcerer and learn spells from the forbidden school, but you cannot learn ONE spell from within the wizard class? Then why you cannot multiclass between two specialist wizard?

Another example is the Druid's (and in the older case, the Cleric's) weapon restrictions. It sounded too arbitrary...

I suspect that just like I have my own pet peeves on some restrictions, many others will have they own on other restrictions, so perhaps the designers should be careful on (a) provide good rationales, or (b) give alternative restrictions, or prompt the DM to make them up.

 

[Minigiant]

@Minigiant I like the idea of having restrictions, including all your examples, but there are some traditional restrictions I don't like...

For example I always thought that the forbidden schools for wizard specialist didn't make any sense. I mean, you can multiclass into Sorcerer and learn spells from the forbidden school, but you cannot learn ONE spell from within the wizard class? Then why you cannot multiclass between two specialist wizard?

Another example is the Druid's (and in the older case, the Cleric's) weapon restrictions. It sounded too arbitrary...

I suspect that just like I have my own pet peeves on some restrictions, many others will have they own on other restrictions, so perhaps the designers should be careful on (a) provide good rationales, or (b) give alternative restrictions, or prompt the DM to make them up.

I never liked the specialist wizard thing nor that secret society druid junk either.

I agree that every restriction should have a good rationale or a opt-out via an alternate variant.

Another restriction I'd want to see is on the base health of elves and base speed of dwarves. Unless the elf take front-line class or take Toughness over and over, they are frail. And only dwarven barbarians can beat a medium humanoid in a foot race with those short legs.

 

[Yora]

On principle, it's not a bad idea. But I don't see many things that really would make much sense.
You could say that dwarves can't do arcane magic because that's just how they are born. But it's not a logical conclusion of them being dwarves.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't like race/class restrictions because it leads to reprition, not to mention most of them are born out of various settings. I think, especially with 4e, races and classes have moved to a more extra-setting position. Therefore restrictions on races and classes should only exist in specific settings.

In my world, there's no reason the rules should limit what a dwarf can be or what a mage can do. In Eberron? In Dark Sun? Sure. My world, my rules, having to un-rule a race or class because in my setting mages can heal living things and gnomes can be barbarians is just a headache.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

I'm all for physical limitations. Dwarves are slow of foot. Elves are frail. Short races don't have reach, and can't use (most) two handed weapons. (Short bows are fine, of course. )

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I'm against any restrictions, it should be X race is not that great at being Y class, but never anything like they can't. It's something I'm glad that died in fire with 3e, and I don't think it should ever come back.

If there are restrictions it should be only up to individual DMs, and never even something to take up space in any book.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I think race/class restrictions have a place -- in the DM's house rules that establish the ground rules and background for a campaign. But I don't believe restrictions should be hard coded into the game. Sure, race design may make elves better wizards and dwarves better fighters, or whatever, but give the DM the option for outright restriction. If I don't want dwarven wizards and you do, the rules should accommodate both of us.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

I'm in favor of lots of benefits and lots of restrictions for races and classes. If the dwarven wizard and chaotic good paladin are left on the side of the road, so be it.