|
Back in the good ol' days Halfling were Figters and/or Thieves. In fact all the races had limitations on which classes they could be. Along came 3e and this was erased along with level limitations. Now I can live with the removal of level limiations but the every race can be every class just seems completely un-D&D. I like my Pathfinder to be played like D&D, so for me D&D = Pathfinder. But 3e really lost me on the D&D feel, and Pathfinder inherited this.
I've been thinking that it is not the rule mechanics but the underlaying philosophy that I'm missing. I think the biggest problem is this cosmopolitain approach to race/class. All my experience with fantasy has lead me to believe that Dwarves don't cast spells - runes yes, spells no, Hobbits/Halflings don't become necromancers, etc. Gnome barbarian, really?! I guess the natural stat bonuses of the races lead people to not make Halfling Paladins? Paladins are humans - simple, why because D&D told me so. Why did this did changed?
I have my 1e books to guide me on the classes in the PF Corerules, but the classes in the UM/UC are a little harder to place. Witches aren't too bad to place - Human, 1/2-Elf, Elf, done. But Inquisitors?
Any suggestions? Do other feel that the d20 equal opportunity emplyment act makes life a little more difficult for the GM when creating a world?
Interested on your thoughts,
S.
|
I thought the any race/class combination was the best thing to come out of third edition. It made no sense to me that only humans could be any class, while other races couldn't be paladins or bards etc.
But I'll bite:
Witch = Wizard
Alchemist = Wizard
Summoner = Wizard
Oracle = Cleric
Cavalier = Paladin
Inquisitor = Paladin
If a race can be the latter class, then it can be the former class as thematically they are very similar.
In my homebrew world, many of the racial stereotypes are still in play, although as just that: stereotypes. It's not that dwarves can't cast spells, but the wizard in the dwarf city is known as Crazy Edgar because, come on, why would you want to cast spells instead of hit something with a hammer and an axe? Most ordinary people still hold on to their purse tighter when they see a halfling, whereas if they see an elf in leather armor, they relax and assume he's a ranger.
People like Crazy Edgar exist, however. They are the exception and not the rule, much like adventurers are. And personally, I enjoy playing unconventional race/class combinations: a halfling barbarian, a half-orc bard, a dwarf ranger. I even rolled up a deep gnome paladin, but the level adjustment made it too headache-inducing to try to play. Honestly, after a while, how different can you make one elf ranger or gnome illusionist from another? I just got bored; when I'd played one, it felt like I'd played them all, and even if I hadn't played them, I'd met them as NPCs. To me, it's more fun to have the stereotype there but then break it.
I thought the any race/class combination was the best thing to come out of third edition. It made no sense to me that only humans could be any class, while other races couldn't be paladins or bards etc.
+1
Really you can always argue that a character was raised differently like a half-orc or half-elf raised in a monistary and becoming a monk or a dwarf being a cleric due to his strong religious beliefs or background. In my opinion to penialise someone who wants to play a particular race with a certain class that doesn't mesh makes no sense, but that's just my 2 cp.
|
|
I thought the any race/class combination was the best thing to come out of third edition. It made no sense to me that only humans could be any class, while other races couldn't be paladins or bards etc.
But I'll bite:
Witch = Wizard
Alchemist = Wizard
Summoner = Wizard
Oracle = Cleric
Cavalier = Paladin
Inquisitor = PaladinIf a race can be the latter class, then it can be the former class as thematically they are very similar.
This isn't a 'bite' thread. Thanks for the opinion. I had something similar originally but then things like the Oracle didn't strike me as Cleric-like. Cleric's are, in my mind, the military arm of the church. Oracles not so much? It seemed a simple matter when I first put pen to paper but ended up as pages of scribbled semi-justifications.
I agree 100% that from a game mechanics point of view the open race/class idea is far easier - no need to balance races out at all this way. Still from a "D&D feel" it murdered a sacred cow that I was quite content with and books like Lord of the Rings, Dragonlance, etc reinforced this 'fantasy world' view.
Cheers,
S.
The reason for all races all classes is so people can 'play what they want to' and don't feel 'cramped by stereotypes'. Given how stereotypes are slammed in most MMO's and videogames now, having that flexibility is a 'nice thing' in most instances.
Inquisitor: Dwarves, Half-orcs, humans. THese races take their religions way too seriously.
Witches: I'd add gnomes and halflings to the list. Witches can be a part of any race, and the fey gnomes and sneaky halflings can both play a part.
Dwarves weren't normally wizards, but dwarves made great earth priests. I personally limited them to specializing in earth magic if wizards. In warhammer it's worse...they get half spell points. BUT, they can use powerstones for twice the mana points of other races.
Personally, I like stereotypes and shticks, as long as other races can't intrude on them.
I liked the fact humans could dual class, but other races could multi class. It gave humans long term power, but demihumans low level power that explained their toughness. An army of 5th-6th level dwarves would be a standing defensive army...the elites could trounce the Flaming Fist! And you simply didn't mess with elven f/mu's in the woods. That was a death sentence.
I liked class level limits. It explained why humans weren't second class citizens to demi humans. They had all the broad low power, and would win the battle of armies, but humans would win the battle of champions.
3E took a lot of that ability away. High levels are everything. A level 18 spellcaster can take out a kingdom, and all the 7/11's you have aren't going to stop him. The gear discrepancy is huge. The HP and defense/offense difference is immense. Without every race having the potential for high levels, they'll be wiped off the map. In 1E, a f/10 with a girdle of giant strength could kick around a f/16 with only natural strength. Doesn't work that way now.
There's so much stuff that's so much tougher at high level then 1E, it's almost impossible to compare the two games. 10-13th level is all you needed to be to fight the toughest things in the game. 7/11 elves could adventure alongside archmages and contribute solidly. That's not the case anymore.
===Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the best way to go about it is to use the mechanics to make a stereotype. If you want halfling rogues, make halflings good at being rogues and make the rogue class synergize well with being a halfling.
What not to do: 3.5 example. Elves had the flavor text of liking magic. Dwarves had the flavor text of hating magic. Neither had a bonus to int, but dwarves had a +2 to con and elves had a -2. Mechanically dwarves were the superior wizard, so thats what you saw a fair number of. Elven wizards, while thematic, sucked.
Pathfinder does a pretty good job with this. Elves now have good reasons to be wizards and players playing a wizard have good reasons to pick elf. The only oddity is dwarven druids: not exactly thematically planned, but mechanically very good.
I think oracles could work for any race because gods did it.
Gnomes should be able to be alchemists that is sort of a third ed stereotype.
Also on dwarven druids the cave druid archetype makes a lot of sense. You could only allow certain archetypes like cave druids or mountain druid for the options avialble that thematically fit for dwarven druids without no dwarf druids.
Also on dwarven druids the cave druid archetype makes a lot of sense
Yes, but has much the same problem as elven wizards.(-2 levels to my best class feature? Hell no) So my druids either live near the surface, or saw the surface for the first time and had a religious experience.
|
|
Stuff I agree with
By re-inserting, as it was orignally there, racial class limitations I'll at least remove the 'horde of Halfling wizards' raining death and destruction on all who oppose them. Or the Gnome Cavalier with the war dog running down human knights on full sized warhorses. Or even sillier, riding in a dungeon!
D&D WAS a world and it made it easy to develop a home brew campaign. By having all races as now basically equal the idea of a "Shire" or "Elven wood" have no real difference than "Human city" as the only real difference now is some people you meet are really short and others have funny looking ears.
This has only really become an issue for me as I've tried to make my own campaign world. I don't like leaving RAW but I just have writers block caused by all the things that Aelryinth basical said. Your race now really doesn't overly matter anymore. Halflings are nomadic clans in 3e, so there goes sticky buns but it does make ring destroying easier I would imagine!
S.
Halfling (and gnome) cavaliers make cavaliers and other mounted warrior types possible in a game of dungeons and dragons. Your other option to get the mount into the dungeon is the paladin pokeball effect, and even then trying to charge around with a large horse simply doesn't happen in a cave system.
Its not ridiculous just because its smaller than you. He's a paladin. He's short. I'm sure he's heard all of the jokes. He still rides on a trusty steed in pursuit of justice. Nothing silly about that just because he's short.
|
|
Halfling (and gnome) cavaliers make cavaliers and other mounted warrior types possible in a game of dungeons and dragons. Your other option to get the mount into the dungeon is the paladin pokeball effect, and even then trying to charge around with a large horse simply doesn't happen in a cave system.
Its not ridiculous just because its smaller than you. He's a paladin. He's short. I'm sure he's heard all of the jokes. He still rides on a trusty steed in pursuit of justice. Nothing silly about that just because he's short.
It's that Halflings don't want to be a Paladin, no aptitude for it. Like-wise Gnomes. Well they didn't, this gave persoanlity to each race. Now throw a dart the board of races and make your class - worse/best that happens is you may lose or gain a +1 bonus to something.
Paizo, be brave - make a campaign book that puts demi-humans in their place (humans are loosing their jobs) and makes Humans too stupid to multiclass!
S.
It's that Halflings don't want to be a Paladin
Really? So you're deciding that for all 3 million halflings in the campaign world, that NONE of them want to be a paladin ? How are you making that decisions for PCs , by taking control of their minds? (which is the players job, not the dms)
no aptitude for it.
What they lack in strength they make up for in accuracy, resistance to outside influence, sheer luck, force of personality and ability to fit their mount into a dungeon.
Like-wise Gnomes. Well they didn't, this gave persoanlity to each race. Now throw a dart the board of races and make your class - worse/best that happens is you may lose or gain a +1 bonus to something.
Its not throw a dart, its pick the character YOU want. Not pick the character some barmy old codger thinks is traditional.
Paizo, be brave - make a campaign book that puts demi-humans in their place (humans are loosing their jobs) and makes Humans too stupid to multiclass!
Oh, because that was a great system. It was like every race except human could gestalt at the cost of 1 level (if that) and there was NO reason to play a human unless you were forced into it.
First things first, it your game world more power to you. Make it as you like, and if your players do not mind even better. Frankly though, it makes little sense and I do not understand how it makes world building harder.
If you want your world's halfings to be like Tolkien hobbits that farm, then bam that is how they are. If they are a village of farmers, then they are mostly commoners, an expert or two and maybe someone with a level of warrior who is the constable.
If your dwarfs are ass kicking miners, again commoners, experts and warriors with leaders being made from fighters, rangers and maybe smacking of Druids. For runes? Wizards using the Words of Power rules from Ultimate Magic.
Heroes are suppose to be awesome, walking units of power and amazing things which include exceptions to the standarded.
The editions shouldn't be compared, be like comparing Pathfinder to World of Darkness.
Also, check out the 3rd Party Material, they might have a Campaign Setting that fits you better. I doubt Paizo will make any other Settings besides 'The Inner Sea'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Playing against tropes works fine if you want to do a post-modernist world like Eberron. In Eberron, it makes perfect sense to have a tiefling paladin trying to stop the gnomish high priest of some dark god from sacrificing a virgin, and by the way, the virgin in this case is not only a half-orc but male. In other worlds? Not so much.
Generally, everyone as players should be allowed to mix and match races and classes as they want, but for the world, things should fall into sterotypes because that's the way things generally end up working even in the real world.
In the real world, people don't talk about Native American pirates, African ninjas, Aboriginal kabbalists, Asian witch doctors, and so on because historical happenstance meant that all these iconic professions were first and most flamboyantly performed by some other race. Given that, it's hardly unreasonable to think dwarven swordsmiths and gnome illusionists are much different. It's not that halflings, elves, dwarves, humans and so on can't grasp illusions, it's just that the gnomes did the research first and worked it into their culture.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What you're speaking of is the best thing ever to come out of 3E, don't remove it.
|
|
It's that Halflings don't want to be a PaladinHow are you making that decisions for PCs , by taking control of their minds? (which is the players job, not the dms)
no aptitude for it.What they lack in strength they make up for in accuracy, resistance to outside influence, sheer luck, force of personality and ability to fit their mount into a dungeon.
Like-wise Gnomes. Well they didn't, this gave persoanlity to each race. Now throw a dart the board of races and make your class - worse/best that happens is you may lose or gain a +1 bonus to something.Its not throw a dart, its pick the character YOU want. Not pick the character some barmy old codger thinks is traditional.
Yet we are willing to accept that because game designer X says Druids can't cast Delayed Blast Fireball that that is 'more fine' than being told a Halfling can't be a Paladin? The rule writers define our game like it or not. Remember the whole Cleric losing Heavy Armour prof? How many PF players/GM's ignore that 'new' ruling?
You pick the character YOU want from a list THEY tell you you can...
Traditional fantasy protraits Hobbits, Elves, and Dwarves in a certain way, D&D was good at giving players a sense of that. That is what I feel has been lost - it has become more generic.
Still not really the point of the thread if you love racial role equality in your fantasy, then 3e/PF is perfect for you. For myself it turns all the races into a shade of grey.
Which still leaves me trying to slot the new classes race specific roles.
Hmmmmm,
S.
Shouldn't this thread be in the house rules/homebrew forum?
|
|
Being a paladin for example is more of a calling than a job certain races go for. RP can explain most class/race combos really.
That being said my group has the tendency to shout "thief!" or "rogue!" as soon as they see a halfling. Funny as hell really. They are almost always right to... :)
The restrictions to race/class combos kind of had to be removed in 3rd edition and pathfinder because lets be honest every other race is mechanically weak compared to the human. Especially small races like halflings and gnomes. They get screwed HARD and there is very little reason to take them at all besides flavor. So that's why they got opened up, so everyone could use them for flavor.
|
|
The editions shouldn't be compared, be like comparing Pathfinder to World of Darkness.
I completely agree. You are right I'm trying to fit Pathfinder into the D&D box and play D&D. Pathfinder is Pathfinder, it's a great generic fantasy RPG based on a d20 rule system - it IS NOT D&D. Still as you suggest if the players don't mind we can reshape aspect of the game to better suit our sense of fantasy. My entire group comes from a 1e background so we have no issue with limiting races (even their levels in some classes) but strangely enough issues with the racial/class free for all.
Thanks for the comments,
S.
Shouldn't this thread be in the house rules/homebrew forum?How do I move it? I think you are right.
Just flag it as being in the wrong forum, and the staff will probably move it tomorrow.
Back in the good ol' days Halfling were Figters and/or Thieves. In fact all the races had limitations on which classes they could be. Along came 3e and this was erased along with level limitations. Now I can live with the removal of level limiations but the every race can be every class just seems completely un-D&D. I like my Pathfinder to be played like D&D, so for me D&D = Pathfinder. But 3e really lost me on the D&D feel, and Pathfinder inherited this.
My game world hails from back in the Dark Ages too :) I still use the old restrictions to define the culturally appropriate roles for a given race. Most Dwarves will not chose to be Wizards for example. If you do, then you're a very unusual Dwarf. There may be in-game consequences (or not) for these choices. A Dwarf Wizard may shave his beard and claim to be "human", a choice which is accepted by Dwarves but humans find a bit strange. He may "wear the beard" (as Dwarves say) and chose one of several culturally approprite roles that allow magic use (a Dwarvin master craftsman whose magic is "blamed" on items he crafts for example). Yes, Dwarves are a tad strange in my world. None of this restricts a PCs choice although it may effect him in game and can have real consequences.
I've been thinking that it is not the rule mechanics but the underlaying philosophy that I'm missing. I think the biggest problem is this cosmopolitain approach to race/class. All my experience with fantasy has lead me to believe that Dwarves don't cast spells - runes yes, spells no, Hobbits/Halflings don't become necromancers, etc. Gnome barbarian, really?! I guess the natural stat bonuses of the races lead people to not make Halfling Paladins? Paladins are humans - simple, why because D&D told me so. Why did this did changed?
It used to be strictly enforced by game rules, but if you think of it as cultural choices it effectively has the same results.
I have my 1e books to guide me on the classes in the PF Corerules, but the classes in the UM/UC are a little harder to place. Witches aren't too bad to place - Human, 1/2-Elf, Elf, done. But Inquisitors?
I'd relate the classes to close core counterparts and typical fantasy tropes. Cavaliers, for example, Humans, Half Elves, Half Orcs, Elves would be the typical Cavaliers (I have a horse archer archtype for Elves). Dwarves, Halflings, Gnomes all outide the norm (but available PC choices).
Any suggestions? Do other feel that the d20 equal opportunity emplyment act makes life a little more difficult for the GM when creating a world?Interested on your thoughts,
S.
The avaiable options (race, class, etc.) are up to the DM in a home brew game (or any other for that matter). Even if you don't outright forbid choices you can outline what the campaign norms are and the possible outcomes of being "unusual". Some societies / cultures are more accepting, others not so much. For that matter you can "just say no" to things as well. If it doesn't fit the setting I'd just say nope.
Other classes -
Note: there's nothing wrong with having a class that humans can't take, if you're having a class that is human only (i.e. 1E paladins)
Summoner - races with natural magical abilities that like big friends. Gnome is the most natural. Elves is a maybe. Actually, making summoners UNIQUE to gnomes would be an awesome thing, although humans who grow up with 'secret friends' is also good.
Oracles - pseudo clerics. Any race can be an oracle, something picks you, you're stuck. Now, certain traditions of Oracle you might limit - battle oracles to humans, half orcs and dwarves, Life Oracles to elves and halflings, etc. Give the powers doing the choosing some discretion.
Cavaliers - When it comes right down to it, you need a society that values mounts. Humans and elves are about it. If you play halflings as nomads, that's fine, but you also need an advanced society that supports a knight. Halflings just don't fit. Dog-riding should be something for halfling rangers.
Samurai - Fits thematically with dwarves, if you remove the mounted element entirely. Pretty much it...the samurai is a sign of a very lawful culture. Basically humans and dwarves is about it.
ninja - Great for gnomes with the 'trickster' aspect and semi-magic. Humans, of course. Halflings might like the stealth aspect of it. Definitely for the elves, as long as you sub magic for 'ki'.
Alchemist- The alchemist is the forerunner of the engineer, trying to combine science with magic. The strongest race other then human would be the Dwarf, patiently experimenting with a thousand materials in his quest for a finer alloy, more magical substance, or great secret, doing for science what runes do for magic. 3.5 Gnomes would also be natural, but the fey basis ones of PF are not. Elves and halflings have little to no inclination for technology, although a nutcase focusing on bio-organic 'science' could work.
Basically, Alchemist should be pretty much limited to humans who love tech, but aren't afraid to mess around with the mind body and soul in their studies, and dwarves. A Dwarven alchemist would likely focus more on bomb making as a master chemist and trying to transmute lead into gold.
===
==Aelryinth
|
|
This may just be because I was introduced to D&D late,but I disagree with this completely.
More than likely, the 3 new players (ok I'm using 3.5e rules as they are simpler) are happy with every race being every class. These 3 don't understand why a Halfling can't be a Wizard for example. I tried explaining that Hogwarts didn't allow persons without shoes to enter, but they didn't swallow that... ;)
|
|
Not much to contribute re the OP's request for appropriate racial restrictions, just a minor historical aside. Back in the day (late '70s/early '80s), the OD&D/1e group I usually played with pretty-much threw out the nonhuman level caps, restrictions on human multiclassing, and nonhuman class limitations. So I look at 3.x and ask, "What took you folks so long?"
Humans being able to do anything was their biggest strength, as was unlimited levels. It was their dominant racial trait.
Demi humans got sooooo many other advantages, they dominated low level play. When you can do so many things well, you are going to be better at low level play.
The top stat for humans was Strength...they could get 18/00. Dwarves and half-orcs were toughest, elves and halflings most graceful. Certain races were just better at certain things. The idea some races were more powerful then others made sense; that elves mastered sword and magic easily made sense; halflings WERE the best theives (look at those racial skill mods); etc and so forth.
But it was a very different game. Level 10 was as high as you needed to go, 13 was Epic, could take on anything. You didn't need high levels.
You can also compare this directly to Warhammer. Basically, non-human races are better at EVERYTHING then humans are. But, humans are lucky, and get more fate points and a couple extra traits at start. Does it balance out? I'd really love that +4 will modifier the elves get...
==Aelryinth
Not much to contribute re the OP's request for appropriate racial restrictions, just a minor historical aside. Back in the day (late '70s/early '80s), the OD&D/1e group I usually played with pretty-much threw out the nonhuman level caps, restrictions on human multiclassing, and nonhuman class limitations. So I look at 3.x and ask, "What took you folks so long?"
Which left your players with no reason to play humans. Demi-human advantages were PHAT back then. Humans had nothing but levels on them.
==Aelryinth
Personally I don't really understand how a lack of absolutes would ruin a campaign setting?
The restrictions on classes may be gone but most races are still stereotyped in Golarion. Most elves are still Wizards or Rangers, a typical halfling will be either a Rogue or a Bard, dwarven culture is still dominated by fighters and clerics. Removing the restrictions hasn't damaged these ideals, ultimately it has given settings a more legitimate feel. A world with total absolutes feels very artificial to me, adding in a few oddities here and there makes the world feel more real.
The thing to remember is that as DM, you have absolute control over every living creature in your world, with the exception of about 4 or 5 individuals . Having two or three exceptions to the basic rules you have established, even grouped together, isn't likely to derail any setting.
Besides, if you simply talk to your players beforehand and tell them that you would prefer if they kept to more traditional race/class roles, I imagine that you would further reduce the number of unplanned exceptions you need to deal with in game.
While I love that 3rd edition removed the restrictions, I still love a world that enforces these stereotypes because it makes the few odd combinations all the more interesting.
Just my 2cp.
On a side note :
I can't believe no one said Half-orc for the Witch yet. To me that kind of shamanistic magic screams Half-orc and other less civilized races.
|
|
So what would you limit the race/class combo's to?
I was initially thinking something like:
Humans = everything but sorcerer & barbarian
Gnome = fighter/illusionist(only)/rogue/bard
Halfling = fighter/rogue/druid
Elf = ranger/sorcerer/rogue/druid
Half-Elf = fighter/ranger/sorcerer/rogue/bard/druid
Dwarf = fighter/rogue/cleric
Half-Orc = barbarian/fighter/rogue
Thoughts?
Ask your players, or encourage them to fit there character ideas into characters that make sense for there racial back ground. Less dwarf who wanted to be casters, more dwarf artificers.
So what would you limit the race/class combo's to?I was initially thinking something like:
Humans = everything but sorcerer & barbarian
Gnome = fighter/illusionist(only)/rogue/bard
Halfling = fighter/rogue/druid
Elf = ranger/sorcerer/rogue/druid
Half-Elf = fighter/ranger/sorcerer/rogue/bard/druid
Dwarf = fighter/rogue/cleric
Half-Orc = barbarian/fighter/rogueThoughts?
Why no human barbarians? (Or sorcerors for that matter, although the barbarian prohibition seems more peculiar to me).
|
|
Ask your players, or encourage them to fit there character ideas into characters that make sense for there racial back ground. Less dwarf who wanted to be casters, more dwarf artificers.
That's the feel we are looking for. Undertstand this is in conjuction with my 'old timer' players. We really like PF as a system, but the race/class thing isn't sitting well. This isn't new 3e, 3.5e we looked at sideways but liked the d20 system. We are about to start a home brew campaign and we got together and thought "how can we fix this issue?" without ruining the balance of the game.
S.
|
|
Why no human barbarians? (Or sorcerors for that matter, although the barbarian prohibition seems more peculiar to me).So what would you limit the race/class combo's to?I was initially thinking something like:
Humans = everything but sorcerer & barbarian
Gnome = fighter/illusionist(only)/rogue/bard
Halfling = fighter/rogue/druid
Elf = ranger/sorcerer/rogue/druid
Half-Elf = fighter/ranger/sorcerer/rogue/bard/druid
Dwarf = fighter/rogue/cleric
Half-Orc = barbarian/fighter/rogueThoughts?
Barbarian really is a little 'mechanicky' in that it makes Half-Orcs stand out as your 'Connan' type over the more refined Human fighter types. I agree with you in principle and perhaps it needs revisited - it just leaves the poor 1/2-Orcs with nothing nice.
Sorcerers is an easy one - Elfs are naturally magical, that screams sorcerer to us. So the Elves don't learn magic (aka Wizards) they just are magical.
S.
Sorcerers is an easy one - Elfs are naturally magical, that screams sorcerer to us. So the Elves don't learn magic (aka Wizards) they just are magical.
S.
I agree with you wrt 3.5 - given the new 'bloodlines' it's a little more complex, imo. Do you plan on restricting the availability of some/most of those?
|
|
I agree with you wrt 3.5 - given the new 'bloodlines' it's a little more complex, imo. Do you plan on restricting the availability of some/most of those?Sorcerers is an easy one - Elfs are naturally magical, that screams sorcerer to us. So the Elves don't learn magic (aka Wizards) they just are magical.
S.
I think most - Fey stays and perhaps Arcane (perhaps to Humany?)
I guess we want a game philosopically 1e/2e while mechanically Pathfinder ultimately. Of course without making the system fall apart.
Not much to contribute re the OP's request for appropriate racial restrictions, just a minor historical aside. Back in the day (late '70s/early '80s), the OD&D/1e group I usually played with pretty-much threw out the nonhuman level caps, restrictions on human multiclassing, and nonhuman class limitations. So I look at 3.x and ask, "What took you folks so long?"
Most of the groups I played with did the same, John. In fact, I don't remember EVER playing a strict RAW AD&D first edition game. During the whole character creation the DM would be explaining the changes they had come up with.
Greg
|
|
Stefan, this is some tedious stuff you've cooked up here.
Actually it wasn't my idea, and I take no credit for it. This was Gary Gygax's idea when he invented the game. Unfortunately he's passed away, but I'm sure he would have found your comment that his game was tedious amusing, but I'm happy to weather critism in his stead.
S.
One PC I want to play is a Halfling Paladin.
"Don't keep the little man down!" :)
(Archer, who functions more like a Cleric, for those puzzled.)
You might want to look at
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=86525
It's a nice throw back with plenty still from 3.5/OGL.
|
|
You might want to look at
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=86525
It's a nice throw back with plenty still from 3.5/OGL.
This harks back beyond any 3e rules. We really like what Paizo have done with d20 rules (read as mechanics) just we need to tweak to suit our 'old persons' view of the game (read as D&D).
To those AGAINST this idea, feel free NOT to comment. Your 'but you shouldn't because it/you suck' comments make it more difficult for me to read the comments from those who have something to add to the conversation. Remember I am asking NO one to use these modifications and will NOT force anyone to play with me as DM.
Fair enough & thanks to those helping rather than hindering me,
S.
I don't see why there is so much opposition to racial class restrictions. Maybe it's because I've played in games where certain classes and certain races are just not allowed. Restrictions can give a lot of flavor to a world, and that's what Stefan is addressing. Having certain races with access to their own niche gives the world an identity where the boundaries between races are more than just size and whether or not they can see in the dark.
That being said, what kind of world are you going for Stefan? Golarion, going back to Faerun or Greyhawk, or just your own world? The reason I ask is because the way the races are portrayed are different so the classes available should be different as well.
What I wonder is the in-character rationale for the restrictions.
Let's say a halfling rogue travels with a human paladin. The paladin is an inspiring force for good and righteousness and throughout the adventures, the halfling converts to following the paladin's god and wishes to follow the same path.
"You can't," says the paladin. "God is racist."
|
|
I don't see why there is so much opposition to racial class restrictions. Maybe it's because I've played in games where certain classes and certain races are just not allowed. Restrictions can give a lot of flavor to a world, and that's what Stefan is addressing. Having certain races with access to their own niche gives the world an identity where the boundaries between races are more than just size and whether or not they can see in the dark.
That being said, what kind of world are you going for Stefan? Golarion, going back to Faerun or Greyhawk, or just your own world? The reason I ask is because the way the races are portrayed are different so the classes available should be different as well.
Firstly thanks for being understanding and summing up better than I what I was getting at.
Greyhawk/Faerun - both a similar to me, but I would hedge towards Greyhawk in feel but perhaps Faerun in politics? But it will be my World - but I'm borrowing from both these sources. Really not thinking of settings that modify or add classes.
Again it's these new classes that are causing issues of what races yes vs no. As they aren't standard fantasy classes (as I know them) I'm going around in circles. There have been some good suggestions above, that I will be mulling over, and take the bits that work for me/my group (regards to those posters).
Cheers,
S.