Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 3261552" data-attributes="member: 3424">So, going back to the original question, and recognizing that there are many styles and preferences when it comes to gaming, there is nothing wrong with race class limitations (as a concept, if not the specific implementation in previous versions of D&amp;D) if:1. You wish to enforce certain campaign-specific characteristics of the races, e.g. humans are flexible and have unlimited potential, halflings do not make good fighters, dwarves are non-magical, etc.2. You wish to provide a disincentive or impose a cost for playing a character of a &quot;non-standard&quot; race, e.g. you are running an human-centric campaign.3. You want your players to manage resources over the length of a campaign, and trade off future disadvantages for starting advantages, e.g. the ability to multiclass, and other racial benefits.4. You wish to run a game that emphasizes other things apart from personal improvement (gaining levels), e.g. the acquisition of power by other means (wealth, magic items, political power, etc.), interaction with NPCs, plot development, etc.However, race class limitations (and, equally, front-loaded advantages) can be problematic if you want all the player characters to be approximately as effective as each other (intra-party balance) at all stages of a campaign, assuming the campaign lasts long enough for the race class limitations to come into effect.Race class limitations can also be a problem if you want to encourage non-standard races, or non-standard members of each race, as player characters.In addition, race class limitations may be implemented in a way that seems to go against the flavor of a particular race, e.g. a magical race that is unable to achieve high levels in a magic-using class, or a race with a martial culture that is unable to achieve high levels in a fighting class (the definition of &quot;high levels&quot; will, of course, vary from campaign to campaign).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FireLance, post: 3261552, member: 3424"] So, going back to the original question, and recognizing that there are many styles and preferences when it comes to gaming, there is nothing wrong with race class limitations (as a concept, if not the specific implementation in previous versions of D&D) if: 1. You wish to enforce certain campaign-specific characteristics of the races, e.g. humans are flexible and have unlimited potential, halflings do not make good fighters, dwarves are non-magical, etc. 2. You wish to provide a disincentive or impose a cost for playing a character of a "non-standard" race, e.g. you are running an human-centric campaign. 3. You want your players to manage resources over the length of a campaign, and trade off future disadvantages for starting advantages, e.g. the ability to multiclass, and other racial benefits. 4. You wish to run a game that emphasizes other things apart from personal improvement (gaining levels), e.g. the acquisition of power by other means (wealth, magic items, political power, etc.), interaction with NPCs, plot development, etc. However, race class limitations (and, equally, front-loaded advantages) can be problematic if you want all the player characters to be approximately as effective as each other (intra-party balance) at all stages of a campaign, assuming the campaign lasts long enough for the race class limitations to come into effect. Race class limitations can also be a problem if you want to encourage non-standard races, or non-standard members of each race, as player characters. In addition, race class limitations may be implemented in a way that seems to go against the flavor of a particular race, e.g. a magical race that is unable to achieve high levels in a magic-using class, or a race with a martial culture that is unable to achieve high levels in a fighting class (the definition of "high levels" will, of course, vary from campaign to campaign). [/QUOTE]

Verification