In my dnd world based on older editions only humans, orcs, half orcs, goliaths, and dragonborn maybe can be barbarians, gnomes, elves, dwarfs, or kenku should not be allowed simply for lore friendly reasons, lizardman I would accept as well, what's your thought on this concept, if you allow and class for any race then go ahead not judgement just want your opinion
Honestly Barbarian, rogue, ranger, sorc. Those classes seem like maybe you have a mentor but can totally be self taught type things. The only one's I'd have any restrictions on are the classes with a formal structure. Like, if you are a wizard, you went to school for it. Maybe it was a master apprentice thing but there was some structure to it. Same with Clerics or druids. For some I'd restrict on subclass though i can't think of any offhand.
That being said it's always based on character background. My main character right now is a Lizardfolk shaman, mechanically he's a lurker warlock because his tribe's god is a kraken. Maybe there's some member of his tribe who specializes in war magics and in game we call a shaman too but mechanically he's a wizard or something.
My main advice would be twofold... If you have restrictions by class and race, I would tell the players ahead of time, and most importantly I would have an in-world reason for each one. I think it is pretty understandable under default lore in most settings why you wouldn’t see many (or any) elven barbarians, for example. It would not be hard to explain that. There might be reasons why other races could not be other classes. For example, maybe the dwarves in your world are all atheists, so they can’t be Clerics. That’s up to you when you create your world. Just explain it to the players ahead of time. Don’t wait for someone to make a Dwarven Cleric and then say, ‘Oh you can’t do that.’
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
There is a fantasy setting where Dwarves cannot cast magic and do not dream. So, they cannot be magic users but are also highly resistant to certain magical things. Due to the dangerous magically imbued components involved with enchanting objects in the lore, Dwarven immunity made them the best source of enchanting items.
Anything is possible, but to keep it interesting and balanced, every player race should have their place in the world to fill in some gap unsuitable for other races. Don't restrict a race with no advantage to playing them or nobody will want to play them.
5e favors freedom over the burdens of balancing lots of racial limitations. ...but it's also highly malleable if you want to change things or build new stuff on its foundation or both.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I echo what others have said: if it’s your vision as a story teller to have things a certain way, it makes your players adapt in a potentially fun and interesting ways. It can also give them a chance to make a new character or retool a beloved one and give them a fresh take on a tried and true old friend.
I myself keep my own character races/classes/backstories vague for this kind of thing and I have fun seeing how I can adapt my characters to different campaigns and settings. So I say go for it!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
- Ori Whitedeer
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In my dnd world based on older editions only humans, orcs, half orcs, goliaths, and dragonborn maybe can be barbarians, gnomes, elves, dwarfs, or kenku should not be allowed simply for lore friendly reasons, lizardman I would accept as well, what's your thought on this concept, if you allow and class for any race then go ahead not judgement just want your opinion
Honestly Barbarian, rogue, ranger, sorc. Those classes seem like maybe you have a mentor but can totally be self taught type things. The only one's I'd have any restrictions on are the classes with a formal structure. Like, if you are a wizard, you went to school for it. Maybe it was a master apprentice thing but there was some structure to it. Same with Clerics or druids. For some I'd restrict on subclass though i can't think of any offhand.
That being said it's always based on character background. My main character right now is a Lizardfolk shaman, mechanically he's a lurker warlock because his tribe's god is a kraken. Maybe there's some member of his tribe who specializes in war magics and in game we call a shaman too but mechanically he's a wizard or something.
Your world, your rules.
My main advice would be twofold... If you have restrictions by class and race, I would tell the players ahead of time, and most importantly I would have an in-world reason for each one. I think it is pretty understandable under default lore in most settings why you wouldn’t see many (or any) elven barbarians, for example. It would not be hard to explain that. There might be reasons why other races could not be other classes. For example, maybe the dwarves in your world are all atheists, so they can’t be Clerics. That’s up to you when you create your world. Just explain it to the players ahead of time. Don’t wait for someone to make a Dwarven Cleric and then say, ‘Oh you can’t do that.’
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
There is a fantasy setting where Dwarves cannot cast magic and do not dream. So, they cannot be magic users but are also highly resistant to certain magical things. Due to the dangerous magically imbued components involved with enchanting objects in the lore, Dwarven immunity made them the best source of enchanting items.
Anything is possible, but to keep it interesting and balanced, every player race should have their place in the world to fill in some gap unsuitable for other races. Don't restrict a race with no advantage to playing them or nobody will want to play them.
5e favors freedom over the burdens of balancing lots of racial limitations. ...but it's also highly malleable if you want to change things or build new stuff on its foundation or both.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I echo what others have said: if it’s your vision as a story teller to have things a certain way, it makes your players adapt in a potentially fun and interesting ways. It can also give them a chance to make a new character or retool a beloved one and give them a fresh take on a tried and true old friend.
I myself keep my own character races/classes/backstories vague for this kind of thing and I have fun seeing how I can adapt my characters to different campaigns and settings. So I say go for it!
- Ori Whitedeer