Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jimlock" data-source="post: 5557056" data-attributes="member: 6674931">Well... bikkd91 said most of it...if i could just name the reasons...:1-Put the humans under the spotlight.In 2nd e i remember humans being left behind in matters of racial abilities...it was mostly text with no rewards...In 3.x the humans are now a race worth taking (feat, skill point) and the fact that they can pick any class without penalties is pretty consistent with how they are described in respect to other races.2-Cultural consistencyI think the title speaks for itself. Races and classes were designed to be combined in certain ways. This does not mean that you won't see a halfling-barbarian once in your adventuring carrier...but in the end, the rules have to somehow support how each race is more like "this" than "that".3-Avoid abuse/dippingThis 3rd reason is closely related to the 2nd one. If there are ways to abuse races by taking certain classes, then there are certainly ways to abuse classes with other classes. Even though it is clear that an X-level fighter gains important benefits by taking 1 Level of Barbarian. It is hard to picture say... an aristocrat-fencer (fighter) becoming at some point "barbaric"... and this paradox holds with many a class combination (especially when magic is involved).One of the reasons D&D holds together throughout the years, is that people recognize the "flavor" of the game... the "flavor" of the races... the "flavor" of the classes... IMO this rule was made so as to maintain this flavor, and is quite efficient at doing so.Everyone runs his game the way he wants to. I'm not saying that D&D SHOULD be played like that because otherwise its not D&D...I'm merely trying to unveil the reasons behind a game's design...</blockquote>

Verification