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.
And do you intend to apply EGGs level limits on the nonhuman races as well otherwise your 1/2e philosophy falls apart right there.
|
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."
Same reason Halflings don't get picked for Half-Orcs basketball teams I imagine?
I mean as something over than the ball.
Remember initially races weren't just variations on Human. Each had their strengths and wekaness. Things they could and couldn't grasp. Only in the last decade did races become a 'stick-on' badge affixed to a class.
S.
I love the ability for any race to pick up any class.
However, if that's not your thing, try this:
Instead of having "favored classes", like in 3.0 and 3.5, try having "unfavored classes". Pick 1 class that each race just can't play. For example...
ELVES: Elves have abandoned their brutal past, and no longer have the ability to progress as BARBARIANS.
DWARVES: The cultural disdain of magic that dwarves have insures that there are no WIZARD schools on dwarven lands, and spellbooks are destroyed.
GNOMES: The strict codes of conduct that PALADINS are required to adhere to are contrary to a gnome's free spirit.
HALFLINGS: Halfling culture disaproves of violence and weapons, and as such, halflings lack the opportunity to train as FIGHTERS.
HALF-ORCS: the half-orc's second class status in both Orcish and Human cultures means that they lack the education necessary to become BARDS.
HALF-ELVES: Half-Elves are intelligent and capable, but their highly social personalities rebel against the seclusion necessary to train as a MONK.
HUMANS: Human culture and technology advances at a startling pace, compared to other races. However, in their relentless pursuit of "progress", they have lost touch with nature and are unable to become DRUIDS.
Note: in this example, everyone can become a Ranger, Rogue, or Sorcerer.
|
Alright, you want help? You got it.
Barbarians- The power of rage comes from the primal element of Chaos. Those who are not imbued with the actual energy of Chaos cannot rage. Orcs are born of Chaos, and thus can be barbarians, while humans and other races have no connections and cannot. 'Acting chaotic' no longer suffices, you must BE a part of Chaos to be a barbarian.
Paladins- Again, acting the part of a paladin is no longer enough. You must BE a part of Law and Good to be chosen as a paladin. No training can prepare you. You either ARE or you AREN'T. And only humans have the connection to both Law and Good required to become a paladin, thus only humans are chosen.
Casters- Not all who wish to grasp the power of magic can. Only those with the Talent can even sense the energies, let alone wield them. Humans have a natural affinity to all magic, while other races can only tap into a few traditions. Gnomes are born of illusions, elves of nature. Dwarves have a pact with the gods. Meanwhile, only the elves can harness arcane energies naturally.
I think you can see where I'm going with this. Does that match your idea?
Did someone just literally use "race" as it exists in D&D to inform concepts of real-world race and ethnicity.
Is that a thing.
That has happened?
|
|
And do you intend to apply EGGs level limits on the nonhuman races as well otherwise your 1/2e philosophy falls apart right there.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.
Very interesting point, and I'm assuming you weren't mentioning it as an attack on the idea, but were honestly enquiring. We have discussed something like a 10th and 15th level limit on some race/class. For example Halflings top out at fighter 10. I don't want to derail the initial thread idea by introducing these ideas for discussion yet however.
Thanks,
S.
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.
Well if you have bothered to read said PDF, as I have it on my lap atm, it takes 3.5 and tosses back the whole racial restrictions and simpler rules sets from 2nd ed. (to a degree), and mixes in a lot of the smoother things from 3.5.
And as far as the "old persons" comment, I have been playing since D&D first came out. I know what you mean, don't think I am some kid who doesn't know his history.
Way back in 1981, when I started playing, it was explained to me by more experienced players that the racial limitations were there to make up for two facts:
1. Most demi-humans could multi-class. Humans were limited to "dual-class," which was more limiting, and in those days nobody worried too much about a multi-class character ending up weaker than a single class (it just wasn't something we fretted over too much until late 2nd Edition). We were too busy being eager to play more than one class at a time.
2. Demi-humans had all those great racial abilities.
Humans, on the other hand, could be anything. Other than multi-class. That was the trade. The result, strangely, was that hardly any of us ever played a human. Because we all wanted to be elvish fighter/magic users, or fighter/magic user/thieves, or whatever. In order to keep that badass elvish fighter/magic user from being too badass, he had limitations on what else he could be, and if I recall correctly, class level limitations. It was all very complicated.
(I personally also believe it had a little to do with their source material; the most obvious being halflings, who had all the class options otherwise available to Bilbo, Sam, Frodo and Bullroarer.)
3.x/Pathfinder traded all that mess for giving humans extra feats and skill points. Probably a cleaner, easier, more simple solution to balancing racial abilities and it brings so many more game options for players.
But here's the funny thing. I know you guys who play gnome barbarians are out there. But in my experience, most players, even new ones, stick with those same old racial limitations without even thinking about it. We still see oodles of halfling rogues, elf fighter/sorcerers, and gnome wizards. So I'm not sure anything really needs to be done about it. It just is, on its own.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nice ideasHadn't thought of this approach. Will pass it by the team.
Thanks,
S.
No problem.
Actually, I just thought of another idea for you. One that you may like better.
In the front of the Advanced Player's Guide, There is a list of "Favored Class Options" for each of the core races. If its your goal to really limit the available classes, then these lists can pull double duty. Use these lists (with or without the alternate options) as your list of available classes. For example: Gnomes can become Alchemists, Bards, Druids, Oracles, Rangers, Rogues, Summoners, and Wizards.
Paizo did the work for you, possibly without even knowing it.
No problem.
Actually, I just thought of another idea for you. One that you may like better.
In the front of the Advanced Player's Guide, There is a list of "Favored Class Options" for each of the core races. If its your goal to really limit the available classes, then these lists can pull double duty. Use these lists (with or without the alternate options) as your list of available classes. For example: Gnomes can become Alchemists, Bards, Druids, Oracles, Rangers, Rogues, Summoners, and Wizards.
Paizo did the work for you, possibly without even knowing it.
Jason: I really like this idea. I was going to suggest using the Adventurers section of the race guide to create a list, but this is far more efficient and complete. All future/third party classes can follow from this list. Of course, it may not be as restrictive as the OP wanted...but I think perhaps he should just pick up some 2e books from his FLGS :D.
OP: Let the world reflect your vision, let the PCs do what they want. The racial descriptions (see: Adventurers) reflect what inclinations different races will have. Allow the world to show them the reaction to their choices, as has been said, by making sure they understand that their character is a little off from what is expected of a member of their race(but not to the point of abuse!).
|
|
Insanely so!
I think you can see where I'm going with this. Does that match your idea?
Rogues are a little bit trickier. If you don't mind 'mundane' classes being less mundane, you can require a connection to the Plane of Shadow to be a rogue. So only certain races can have this connection. Other than that, I'm not sure how to go, unless you want to make 'roguery' inherently Evil and require exposure to actual elemental Evil.
Olive Ruskettle, 2nd edition D&D novel reference to the topic. The halfling Bard, sort of.
Personally, my home brew does have some racial class limitations. With the change to Pathfinder it became slightly smoother. The classes from the core rule book are all available. Beyond that it quickly becomes either denied or racial. In fact as it stands only the Magus gets open access, and 2 are racially limited.
Surface Elves -- Inquisitors, going with the theme of their religious mandate to snuff out all others.
Hobgoblins -- Alchemist. Clerics and druids among them are even more rare than Paladins (anti/blackguard). Most Hobs are atheist, though a few go to devil/demon worship. This gives them some more healing in the form of potions.
Here's my go at it...
Alchemist - Humans, Half-Elves, Halflings
Barbarian - Half-Orcs
Bard - Humans, Half-Elves
Cavalier - Humans
Cleric - Humans, Dwarves
Druid - Humans, Elves
Inquisitor - Humans, Half-Elves, Dwarves
Fighter - Humans, Half-Orcs, Halflings, Dwarves
Magus - Elves, Half-Elves
Monk - Humans
Oracle - Humans, Half-Elves, Dwarves
Paladin - Humans
Ranger - Humans, Elves, Half-Elves
Rogue - Humans, Half-Elves, Halflings
Sorcerer* - Humans, Half-Elves, Elves, Gnomes
Summoner - Elves, Gnomes
Witch - Humans
Wizard - Humans, Half-Elves, Elves, (Illusionist) Gnomes
* The Bloodlines available to each race differ, for example the Fey bloodline would only be available to Elves and Gnomes, the Draconic Bloodline only Available to Humans, the Arcane Bloodline only availible to Elves and Half-Elves, etc.
|
|
Well if you have bothered to read said PDF, as I have it on my lap atm, it takes 3.5 and tosses back the whole racial restrictions and simpler rules sets from 2nd ed. (to a degree), and mixes in a lot of the smoother things from 3.5.
And as far as the "old persons" comment, I have been playing since D&D first came out. I know what you mean, don't think I am some kid who doesn't know his history.
Apologies, you will just have to trust that I wasn't implying anything about your D&D lineage. I indeed didn't have time to view the PDF before I replied. I was fending off some unhelpful people and their comments.
Will look into this evening.
S.
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.
Get back on your lawn?
Why is that you can't simply make a list of classes your gnomes tend to be? I do that anytime I create a new culture, down to archetypes, bloodlines, etc and even preferred fighting styles, and use that as a guide to your NPC or even PC creation. Takes me about 30 minutes, more if I really want to think it over.
Nothing is preventing any race from taking any class... nothing. There is no divine stop sign that keeps an elf from being LG, extremely dedicated to helping the innocent, destroying evil, and living up to a high standard of conduct. Or a gnome from taping into inner sources of rage and cutting loose with a big sword.
|
|
Nothing is preventing any race from taking any class... nothing. There is no divine stop sign that keeps an elf from being LG, extremely dedicated to helping the innocent, destroying evil, and living up to a high standard of conduct. Or a gnome from taping into...
There was and it made perfect sense to me. A Gnome version of the Hulk does not. Again, do you have any suggestions or just posting to tell me how wrong I am? If the former I look forward to reading them, if the latter, well hopefully you'll find another thread that actually interests you.
Regards,
S.
|
|
Here's my go at it...
Alchemist - Humans, Half-Elves, Halflings
Barbarian - Half-Orcs
Bard - Humans, Half-Elves
Cavalier - Humans
Cleric - Humans, Dwarves
Druid - Humans, Elves
Inquisitor - Humans, Half-Elves, Dwarves
Fighter - Humans, Half-Orcs, Halflings, Dwarves
Magus - Elves, Half-Elves
Monk - Humans
Oracle - Humans, Half-Elves, Dwarves
Paladin - Humans
Ranger - Humans, Elves, Half-Elves
Rogue - Humans, Half-Elves, Halflings
Sorcerer* - Humans, Half-Elves, Elves, Gnomes
Summoner - Elves, Gnomes
Witch - Humans
Wizard - Humans, Half-Elves, Elves, (Illusionist) Gnomes
This is excellent. Will steal and pass by the guys - the human only classes I agree with 123%.
Edit: I do like the idea of a Half-Elf Witch.
People these days want to be that "beautiful or unique snowflake". Is there a stereotype? Do the opposite. Break all the conventions! I wanna be a good dark elf ranger with two long-blades for fighting style!
Being unique has become the stereotype. Apparently being "better than everyone else" isn't good enough.. you have to jarr the preconceptions too, otherwise you aren't doing it right.
Better still... play an anthropomorphic animal humanoid. Except that's been done too much now, so we really need to get into the weird (7 foot tall prey mantis people with mental powers, anyone?).
The thing is, the game has moved much more towards allowing players to dictate a lot more about their characters than before.
The DM can set up his world with whatever stereotypes he wants, but the players get to play that unique individual.. the Halfling raised in a Human society, that follows the path of being a Paladin, etc.
Unique backgrounds explaining combinations that go against the grain, but the standard fare being according to the normal stereotype.
As a DM, you could require a legitimate background to explain the eclectic race/class combination. Where did they get training? What society was this allowed in? Stuff like that.
As DM, you will have to adjust your campaign setting to accomodate this awkward background, so it would be completely normal to veto a strange combination that would require breaking your homebrew campaign.
Golarion is set up to accomodate practically anything, because it works best to entice the widest group of players. It's also kind of the "in-thing" right now.. people want the crazy combos. Late in an edition (and Pathfinder is definitely an extension of 3e), people are trying out anything that they haven't before.
.
I'm quite a permissive DM, so I wouldn't feel the need to go this far. However, if I joined a game where the social contract was explained that stereotypes are good and expected, I'd make an effort to not "buck the trend".
If you are playing a game that wants to harken back to the feel of LotR, and others, then it's no different a request than to "Keep the Comedy in check" during your horror campaign.
Let me just list the way I have it in my homebrew setting:
Alchemist: Humans, Dwarves, Gnomes, Hobgoblins
Barbarian: Any
Bard: Humans, Dwarves, Halflings, Changelings
Cavalier: Don't use this class
Cleric: Any
Druid: Humans, Gnomes
Fighter: Any
Gunslinger: Don't use guns
Inquisitor: Dwarves, Gnomes, Humans, Hobgoblins
Magus: Still trying to figure out where this class fits
Monk: Dwarves, Humans, Hobgoblins
Paladin: Humans
Oracle: Any
Ranger: Humans, Dwarves, Gnomes
Rogue: Any
Sorcerer: Any
Witch: Any
Wizard: I don't use wizards
Also the allowed player races are; Changelings, Dwarves, Gnomes, Halflings, Hobgoblins, and Humans.
People these days want to be that "beautiful or unique snowflake". Is there a stereotype? Do the opposite. Break all the conventions! I wanna be a good dark elf ranger with two long-blades for fighting style!
Being unique has become the stereotype. Apparently being "better than everyone else" isn't good enough.. you have to jarr the preconceptions too, otherwise you aren't doing it right.
Better still... play an anthropomorphic animal humanoid. Except that's been done too much now, so we really need to get into the weird (7 foot tall prey mantis people with mental powers, anyone?).
How dare people not want to be yet another g~$&&@n dwarf fighter.
|
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?
Interesting. Only core no APG?
Keep in mind the ranger class was based off of the Rangers from LotR's and that the first ranger made by Tolkien was in fact Trotter, a halfling.
|
|
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
Yet people still mostly played humans. I agree with the theory--it was, in fact, a matter of some heated discussion*, back in the day--but that's not how the actual games, refereeing and character generation went in practice.
*Much of which is being recapitulated here. Plus ça change, and all that.
And do you intend to apply EGGs level limits on the nonhuman races as well otherwise your 1/2e philosophy falls apart right there.Very interesting point, and I'm assuming you weren't mentioning it as an attack on the idea, but were honestly enquiring. We have discussed something like a 10th and 15th level limit on some race/class. For example Halflings top out at fighter 10. I don't want to derail the initial thread idea by introducing these ideas for discussion yet however.
Oh i think it needs to be discussed.What limits a halfling from becoming as skilled a fighter as a human..strength has nothing to do with skill
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.
* Pirates in the Age of the Sail were pretty much a hodgepodge of ethnicities, and poor and dispossessed individuals. The famous pirate captains we think about were white, but their crew were quite likely to include mestizos, at least, if not full-blooded Native Americans. And while there may be no grand tradition of sea-borne raiders in that ethnicity, there were certainly those who raided settlements and acted like pirates. Sid Meier's Pirates! includes Indian War Canoes, and I doubt they sprung entirely from his imagination.
* Ninja is a specifically Japanese term, and does carry specific cultural mythos with it, true. But boil it down to the essence of the thing, and it describes a sneaky Assassin. And I guarantee you, those exist and have existed in Africa, and everywhere.
* Kabbalists and Witch Doctors are specific mystical traditions, but both would probably be represented in D&D by the same class or small set of classes--Oracle, Cleric, or Witch depending on how you interpret it. Again, specific manifestation of a larger universal archetype.
Classes aren't jobs. In-game awareness of classes is blurry at best; casters have some specificity, but even then, a Witch might be easily confused for any one of a Wizard, a Sorcerer, an Oracle...she could even call herself a Cleric, and it would be hard to dispute it from an in-world, eyes-on-the-ground perspective. Cleric can mean the class, or it can mean any person, from Commoner to arch-Wizard who performs certain duties and services for a church and congregation. All members of a barbarian tribe might be called barbarians, but the classes represented could include not only Barbarians, but also Commoner, Experts, Warriors, Fighters, Rangers, Druids, Sorcerers, Clerics, Bards, Witches...maybe even a Wizard or Alchemist in a shamanistic/herbalistic role.
I'll let good old Sten sum up my feelings on the topic as a whole: "People are not simple. They cannot be summarized for easy reference in the manner of: 'The elves are a lithe, pointy eared people who excel at poverty'."
(Of course, Sten is all for restrictions on class across gender lines...)
A few things I would consider:
- I like 'demi-humans' not being able to have more than half their levels in classes not favored by them. So a halfling can not begin a career as a paladin, but could become a fighter 5/paladin 4 for example.
- level limits might work the same way and possibly in addition to the non-favored classes option above, a halfling fighter might not make it past level 8, though a certain archetypes like the 'slinger' might exceed that limit and instead advance up to level 13.
- Change races to be less adaptable, the dwarves with spell resistance racial feature would for example be mandatory for every dwarf, which actually would make them pretty awful arcane magic-users.
- Make archetypes/PrC mandatory or restricted for certain races.
As to the new classes:
Witch, seems to feel alot like the witchdoctor, a bit more primitive and primal magic user, many humanoids will be inclined towards becoming a witch rather than a wizard or lack the inborn talent to be a sorcerer.
Not quite divine, the witch's power is tied to 'Old Religion' and 'False Gods' borrowing power and forbidden knowledge from immortal beings and are generally frowned upon by practitioners of true religion. Less enlightened/civilized humans, elves and savage humanoids are likely witches instead of wizards and can function as priests to those lacking true faith/religion. It might function as variant wizard, sorcerer or druid.
Oracle, any race that has a form of true religion can have oracles, oracles can function without organized churches and might be more common than clerics among less civilized races or settlements to broaden the gods influence to places where religious teachings have not reached, the recipients do not have the option to deny this gift. Treat it as a clerics or druid, though the mysteries might be limited by race.
Cavalier, every race can have cavaliers but none embrace the tradition like humans do, elves on noble and sometimes magical steeds, dwarves on sturdy dire boars, halflings on riding dogs are not unheard of, but none particulary widespread. I'd treat it as a fighter variant.
Alchemist, gnomes seem particulary suited, treat it as illusionist for gnomes. Dwarves might have some talent for alchmey though it rubs too close to arcane magic to be fully accepted.
Summoner, treat this as a sorcerer variant.
Inquisitor, cuts close to paladins in zeal, I'd treat them the same.
Oh i think it needs to be discussed.What limits a halfling from becoming as skilled a fighter as a human..strength has nothing to do with skillAnd do you intend to apply EGGs level limits on the nonhuman races as well otherwise your 1/2e philosophy falls apart right there.Very interesting point, and I'm assuming you weren't mentioning it as an attack on the idea, but were honestly enquiring. We have discussed something like a 10th and 15th level limit on some race/class. For example Halflings top out at fighter 10. I don't want to derail the initial thread idea by introducing these ideas for discussion yet however.
For a halfling to excel at fighting they have to fight their own nature where a human shape themselves to adapt to whatever path they choose, on top of that the single minded focus and ambition humans have to excel and master their own destiny is unequaled.
Why not use traits to emphasize preferred stereotypes? I.e. those who "break the mold" and do something outside of what you are suggesting get nothing. But those who fall into the stereotypical Half-Orc Barbarian get an additional mechanical benefit of traits. Maybe even 3-4 of them if you are so inclined.
It may skew things a bit. But it'd give some added incentive to enjoy said stereotypes rather than simply giving them a list to choose from.
|
Why not use traits to emphasize preferred stereotypes? I.e. those who "break the mold" and do something outside of what you are suggesting get nothing. But those who fall into the stereotypical Half-Orc Barbarian get an additional mechanical benefit of traits. Maybe even 3-4 of them if you are so inclined.
It may skew things a bit. But it'd give some added incentive to enjoy said stereotypes rather than simply giving them a list to choose from.
That seems the most palatable way to do it, but then race restrictions are damn near anathema to me so I can't really say how well it would fit for the OP's group.
For a halfling to excel at fighting they have to fight their own nature where a human shape themselves to adapt to whatever path they choose, on top of that the single minded focus and ambition humans have to excel and master their own destiny is unequaled.Oh i think it needs to be discussed.What limits a halfling from becoming as skilled a fighter as a human..strength has nothing to do with skillAnd do you intend to apply EGGs level limits on the nonhuman races as well otherwise your 1/2e philosophy falls apart right there.Very interesting point, and I'm assuming you weren't mentioning it as an attack on the idea, but were honestly enquiring. We have discussed something like a 10th and 15th level limit on some race/class. For example Halflings top out at fighter 10. I don't want to derail the initial thread idea by introducing these ideas for discussion yet however.
In what way, exactly? Fighter is easily the least specific class there is. Halflings aren't well suited to being massively damaging two handed weapon fighters, but that's not remotely all that a fighter is. How does a halfling have to fight their own nature to learn how to swing a sword really well?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
There was and it made perfect sense to me. A Gnome version of the Hulk does not.
What about a Gnome version of Joe Pesci in Goodfellas? ^_^
If you must limit race/class combinations, I second starting with the list of Favored Class alternatives that first appeared in the APG.
Dwarves, for instance, have: Barbarian, Cleric, Fighter, Oracle, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue
Elves get: Barbarian, Bard, Cavalier, Fighter, Ranger, Sorcerer, Wizard
Obviously you'd tweak this list depending on your campaign setting, and to accommodate the Magus(elf) and Gunslinger(dwarf), but I'd say at least Fighters should be available for each race.
In what way, exactly? Fighter is easily the least specific class there is. Halflings aren't well suited to being massively damaging two handed weapon fighters, but that's not remotely all that a fighter is. How does a halfling have to fight their own nature to learn how to swing a sword really well?For a halfling to excel at fighting they have to fight their own nature where a human shape themselves to adapt to whatever path they choose, on top of that the single minded focus and ambition humans have to excel and master their own destiny is unequaled.Oh i think it needs to be discussed.What limits a halfling from becoming as skilled a fighter as a human..strength has nothing to do with skillAnd do you intend to apply EGGs level limits on the nonhuman races as well otherwise your 1/2e philosophy falls apart right there.Very interesting point, and I'm assuming you weren't mentioning it as an attack on the idea, but were honestly enquiring. We have discussed something like a 10th and 15th level limit on some race/class. For example Halflings top out at fighter 10. I don't want to derail the initial thread idea by introducing these ideas for discussion yet however.
I didn't mean their physique by that, halflings might be less straight up warriors than humans, dwarves or half-orcs, more inclined to trickery and guile in combat. I don't think this is the best way to mimic that, but it is a possibility.
Perhaps just limit favored class bonus for restricted classes or not give a favored class bonus at all, that will make certain class/race combinations unlikely to be chosen by PCs for more than a few levels.
|
|
On a more constructive note, because I like the idea of dwarves with a mystical tie to the earth, I would suggest in return for barring them from being wizards or druids you negate their CHA penalty for the purposes of spellcasting as oracles of Stone (and maybe Metal), and/or as sorcerers with Elemental Earth and similar bloodlines.
If you're going to hark back to Tolkien as source material, you may want to put restrictions on some skill ranks as well--dwarves and elves seemed to be much better crafters than humans. Remember, the Elves forged their own Rings of Power, while Sauron made the Rings for all the other races, and the trade in dwarf-made armor and weapons was enough to support the dwarven city under Erebor.
You could set it up so that certain archetypes are race specific such as the Phalanx Soldier being Human only, Brawler being Half-Orc only, and Sniper being Halfling only. Or even have it so that some of the 'restricted' classes are attainable through certain archetypes (ie. Half-Orc Sorcerer with Orc Bloodline).
Class restrictions were part of the race "balance" in the older editions. Same with the level limits.
And I have to admit that I don't see a single bit of flavour in any of it.
If you restrict classes, you should offer demi-humans something in exchange. If you want to keep the DnD feel, limit humans to old edition Dual-classing. If they want to take another class, they can never take any levels in the first class, and can use none of the abilities of their former class until the new one is at least one level higher. Further, they can never take another level in their old class, and they can only ever do this once. Include PrCs in the limit.
That keeps with humans having shorter lives and having to focus themselves, but keeping a wider range. Then you can limit demi-humans but let them multiclass freely, as per Pathfinder rules.
Or if you don't feel like allowing old Dual-classing, don't let humans multiclass at all. Shorter lives, more options, but they have no choice but to focus.
After all, if you don't put some sort of limit on humans, you're not keeping the whole feel of racial limitations. Which means it won't feel like DnD.
Way back in 1981, when I started playing, it was explained to me by more experienced players that the racial limitations were there to make up for two facts:
1. Most demi-humans could multi-class. Humans were limited to "dual-class," which was more limiting, and in those days nobody worried too much about a multi-class character ending up weaker than a single class (it just wasn't something we fretted over too much until late 2nd Edition). We were too busy being eager to play more than one class at a time.
2. Demi-humans had all those great racial abilities.
Humans, on the other hand, could be anything. Other than multi-class. That was the trade. The result, strangely, was that hardly any of us ever played a human. Because we all wanted to be elvish fighter/magic users, or fighter/magic user/thieves, or whatever. In order to keep that badass elvish fighter/magic user from being too badass, he had limitations on what else he could be, and if I recall correctly, class level limitations. It was all very complicated.
(I personally also believe it had a little to do with their source material; the most obvious being halflings, who had all the class options otherwise available to Bilbo, Sam, Frodo and Bullroarer.)
3.x/Pathfinder traded all that mess for giving humans extra feats and skill points. Probably a cleaner, easier, more simple solution to balancing racial abilities and it brings so many more game options for players.
But here's the funny thing. I know you guys who play gnome barbarians are out there. But in my experience, most players, even new ones, stick with those same old racial limitations without even thinking about it. We still see oodles of halfling rogues, elf fighter/sorcerers, and gnome wizards. So I'm not sure anything really needs to be done about it. It just is, on its own.
In retrospect I'm kind of surprised how much everyone liked extreme multiclassing. It's not as if you were becoming super powerful; in a 12th level party the 12th level wizard was light years ahead of the thief 5/fighter 4/wizard 3 or however the staggered advancement worked out.
DWARVES: The cultural disdain of magic that dwarves have insures that there are no WIZARD schools on dwarven lands, and spellbooks are destroyed.
HALF-ORCS: the half-orc's second class status in both Orcish and Human cultures means that they lack the education necessary to become BARDS.
There's a big difference between don't usually become and can never become.
Restrictions that rely on culture or upbringing is extremely limiting. If cultural restrictions means that a dwarf is unable to be an individual and learn magic, then it also means that ever single one should be Lawful Good without exception and be incapable of being any other alignment.
If everyone is limited to a specific type of upbringing, you're saying that no one, anywhere in the world, is willing to ever give a half-orc a chance. After all, lack of education is not the same as being incapable of getting the education. Even if they can't get into a school, it's always possible someone will give them private lessons after all.
Do other feel that the d20 equal opportunity emplyment act makes life a little more difficult for the GM when creating a world?
No, not even a little. The removal of those ridiculous rules is my favorite thing about recent iterations of the game.
I would love to see someone take the time and Convert Pathfinder and 2nd Edition together into a homebrew. I think 2nd Edition was the best system made (since 90% was made before WOTC destroyed D&D with 3.0) 3.0 I agree really made Humans worthless, 1 feat was just not worth fact that since any race can play any class then no reason to play human mindset. No level limits was great, we always played without them in 2nd edition anyway. I loved multiclassing in 2nd edition as well, one of the only 3.5 ideas that made it feel like they were trying something was Gestalt which is 2nd edition multiclassing at its core. Other than that 3.0 and 3.5 spit on the way I felt D&D stood for. Pathfinder has rekindled my love for the game but I would not hestatate to bring some 2nd edition flare into the game.
I don't quite agree ofcourse, 3.5 had alot of good things going for it and the multi-classing isn't all bad. Multi-classing in 2nd edition was more or less a given and the dividing of hitpoints and advancement was pretty awkward. Oddly I think humans were worthless in 2nd edition much more than 3rd edition which gave a reason to play humans besides awful dual-classing rules.
Multi-classing in PF works quite well if you are not a spellcaster, which can be made to work well enough.
Archetypes add quite a bit of 2nd edition flair back to the game, since they are essentially 'kits'.
Some racial discrimination is fine in my book though, some more racial specific feats and options are quite welcome, and some racial PrC are actually some of the few PrC I like.
I am wondering if it wouldn't be nice if race played a more important role for your character when you level up, so your racial abilities advance in addition to your class levels. Much like favored class bonus but enhancing racial abilities subtly.
Dwarves could get DR vs non-lethal damage, skill bonus on crafts, toughness as a bonus feat, enhanced saves or spell resistance vs magic, bonus on perception when underground, bonus vs racial foes, earth magic as spell-like ability, proficiency with racial weapons, increasing wisdom or constitution, natural armor.
This could include several of a dwarves starting bonuses, instead gaining (or enhancing) abilities gradually throughout the levels.
/end random rant
I've always handled this as in-game roleplaying elements, or in the world setup for NPCs.
My view has always been that the PCs are exceptional individuals in a world that is bound by tradition and social conventions. So the NPCs are going to follow the tropes, but the PCs get to be whatever they want.
What I find the most enjoyable is to find match ups of race and class for NPCs that are unconventional compared to the older tropes, but when placed in context within the world make a lot of sense.
As an example, a kingdom where halflings have an elevated status as cavaliers because they ride Rocs. Humans are too heavy to be practical riders of these companions, but halflings are perfect. This is an e6 campaign, so the Rocs are never going to hit 7th level and become large size, so the halflings have a huge advantage as aerial knights of the land. And they aren't stupid, they primarily use bows.
So there is a noble house of halflings in the kingdom that are the elite guard of the land. They watch the land, keep it safe and can quickly respond to trouble. They also care for the Rocs, and so an important part of the economy in the kingdom goes into the infrastructure to maintain the flocks. That has created a middle class of halflings that provide these services.
Stuff like that...
The PCs however are rare individuals, filled the spark of a "player character" who's inevitably going to have modernistic worldviews leak into their roleplaying, and thus the cosmopolitan mindset is allowed and encouraged for them to be whatever they want to be. The societies might be off put at times, but that friction is part of the drama.
For me, it was halfling sailors. That Golarion creators and David Webber did the same was just icing on the cake.
I also let society play to the sterotypes. Everyone thinks half orcs are brutish thugs because well, almost every half orc encountered is a brutish thug. There are exceptions (players and RARE NPC's), but they are the exception. The one stereotype I had the most issues with was the Halfling from AD&D 1st edition. Never encountered one that was NOT a thief. Sheesh, not certain why lawful communities even allowed them in the towns. ( "Oh no, Mr Guard Captain, We are GOOD thieves. We only take from bad people." o.O )
I have no issues with the species profiling, I just have always left the exceptions available to the players.
That said, I am overall pretty much a stickler for core races. Goblin rogue? nope, not at my table. Drow ranger? nope. Mikaze orc? Great idea, not gonna happen :P
So I guess my line gets drawn at a different spot then the OP.
Greg
In retrospect I'm kind of surprised how much everyone liked extreme multiclassing. It's not as if you were becoming super powerful; in a 12th level party the 12th level wizard...
Actually, since XP req doubled every level for most levels (until the classes hit plateaus later), the Fighter/Magic-User (Boy, haven't typed that in a long time, if ever) would be only one level of MU behind for much of the run. (Wizard 6 vs. F/MU 4/5 or so (who wears armor)). Essentially two class Multiclassers were considered one or two levels better than their highest level and three class MCs were two or three levels better than their highest level (so were only that much lower a caster in most cases).
Leveling was also much slower for everyone, so having all those cool racial abilities and several levels of another class too was worth being a level or two behind.(H.P. were divided by # of classes (not added) for 3.x young 'uns out there. And BAB (but not) would be highest attack, not sum of both)
Completely agree you should limit humans on MCing ever (except once, and never go back) (or take away the extra feat/skill point). But let them be any class, like original, because every single class is based on our, human, mythology-culture. (Some of the examples above make Conan a Half-Orc and preclude Gnomes from being Alchemists (perhaps the only demihuman that should be))
Things to ponder/questions of curiosity:
There were later changes in the system. NPC demi-humans could be Clerics, for instance. But PCs couldn't? Yep. (Oh, but Half-Orcs could be already! Suck it, DWARF!) Other classes began opening up to other races, in a constant evolution toward 3.x. So where do you set your marker?
Also, Gygax ran a Half-Elf Druid/Ranger (Curley Greenleaf?), that not only broke class restrictions, but alignment restrictions as well (and if I recall got into higher levels than allowed too). (Druids could only be True Neutral and Rangers were Good.) So how important was all this really? And are you going to cap Druids and make them take the Heirophant PrC?
If not, why not? Because this whole shift is to represent a campaign's culture and that's as much part of Gygax's world as the ban on Half-Orc Druids.
Oh, and many savage races had shaman types (Witch or Adepts being the closest things in PF) even some races now toted as being anti-magic/anti-arcane. What about them? A Goblin can cast Cure Light, but not a (insert PC race here)?
In 1st ed., anybody could be Fighter or Thief (Rogue), and only Half-Orcs had a cap with Thief (but were only demi-human with no cap on Assassin. Well... 15, but than you were THE top assassin.)
So you want a lot of Rogues and Humans in your game?
And Fighter was effectively useless for Halflings (capped at 5 (?), still split XP between class if a Thief as well, even though Fighter couldn't progress anymore.) How would that get represented? It's not that they couldn't be Fighters.
Would you cap your Dwarf Fighters too? Ouch.
And Elf Wizards, not as good as human in the end?
(Hopefully you said 'Of course not' to the latter two questions.)
See what I'm saying?
I respect your attempt, but the mechanics behind trying to replicate 1st Ed. rules (guidelines? campaign style?) in 3.x/PF sort of falter if carried over in chaotic clumps.
Advice:
1. Start over, not referring to 1st ed. at all. Use your own judgment, not Gygax's nor Tolkien's. Make a grid of class vs. race and pore over it with your own campaign in mind, checking as needed and then passing it to the players when done as part of the "Here's your world" package.
(And listen wholeheartedly when they respond, perhaps the most important thing in post.)
2. Perhaps, as suggested by others, use carrots, not cages. Double (or keep) the bonuses for those in the 'right' classes, and subtract the bonus for those in the 'wrong' classes.
3. Use social stigma (also suggested above), pushing most every NPC toward the common tropes and have it have mechanical effects (as many players adore social stigmas).
(Halfling Wizard? Go away, kid, this mage guild doesn't have high chairs. Can't buy spells here. or "Why'd that Good Dragon attack me!?" (Friend makes knowledge check) "I think it's because he's offended that your Draconic bloodline is mixed with your tainted Orc blood. You're an abomination. To him, not me. Oh, and since we didn't kill it, I'd expect the word is out.")
3. (Questionable) Have a multiclassing system, i.e. Halflings can be fighters, but only to level 5, and only if another class is higher level. Maybe label these classes "MC only" (MC5?) or "Limited" for ones they can single-class, but to a cap, or "L5" (L10, etc.)
So, for example...
Dwarf-
Alchemist: L5 (Smelting and all that.)
Barbarian: No (MC5? Many raging dwarf fighters in FR novels.)
Bard: MC5 (Can't just be wussy Bard)
Cleric: L10 (That's right, I capped them Dwarves, old school style!)
(3.5 Runecaster PrC to go higher?)
Druid: No (or cave variant/earth domain)
Fighter: Yes
Gunslinger: No (Or yes, depends on amount of WoW you want)
Magus: No
Monk: No
Paladin: No
Ranger: 'Cavers' only
Rogue: L10 or MC10 (Yes, not 1st ed. choice, but feels right IMO)
Sorcerer: No (or L10 cave/earth variant only)
Summoner: No (but what if Eidolon made to resemble Earth Elem.?)
Witch: No
Wizard: No
Of course, you'd have to put in all the PrCs too...
Completely uncertain you working on this adds enough to your world to validate the effort, as opposed to making another city or NPC cluster.
Do hope that stirred the brainpan to help you though,
JMK
(Sidenote for those referencing Drizzt. Salvatore plays D&D, and he's said he and his fellow players would NEVER let a Drow be a PC (and not for game mechanic reasons, but 'Drow are villains' reasons.)
Leveling was also much slower for everyone, so having all those cool racial abilities and several levels of another class too was worth being a level or two behind.
RAW, leveling wasn't really much slower.
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?
Yes, because the game designer makes the rules of the universe and the rules for nature/druid's deity and i would not find it odd at all if said deity was not passing out the number one cause of PC started forest fires.
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?
None that i know of. If you want a heavily armored cleric spend a feat, there you go. YOUR cleric can wear heavy armor. Problem solved.
You pick the character YOU want from a list THEY tell you you can...
And its a large list, and with archetypes and alternate classes its getting bigger all the time.
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.
D&D didn't embrace "traditional" fantasy it embraced tolkiens fantasy. If you want "Traditional" dwarves they QUITE the opposite of magicphobic, seeing as how they made Thor's hammer, the thread that bound the fenris wolf, and pretty much every cool magic thingie in norse mythology.
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.
Most humans die when they're immolated by dragonfire. PC's do not. PC's are expected to be odd ducks when it comes to a lot of the capabilities of their own species.
Which still leaves me trying to slot the new classes race specific roles.