Balance bwtween Class, Race, and Background

[FireLance]

I prefer for the player to have a choice about how much their character is defined by what. Sticking to just the three options of class, race, and background/theme, I'd like for players to be able to distribute their options equally between the three, or to lean more heavily on their class to the point where theme and/or race are barely there. Class should be the most available option, because it's what you're doing NOW.

Pretty much this. I would prefer class, race and theme to give no fixed benefits at all. Instead, a character chooses his benefits from the options available to him by virtue of his class, race and theme. The advantage to this approach is that adding more classes, races and themes to a character increases complexity, but does not significantly increase power. Multiclassing or mixed-race characters can then be represented quite easily by adding a second (or third, or whatever) class or race to a PC.

 

[Mengu]

I like cheese. That made all other poll options pale in comparison.

But if cheese option wasn't there, I would have gone with 75% class.

Ideally I want:

20% class core
20% choice of build/features
20% choice of feats/powers
20% race
15% theme/background/profession
5% DM fiat to make your concept work.

And intentionally not on the list, 0% magic items. Item dependency is one of very few things I despise about 4e. You shouldn't need rushing cleats, controlling weapon, or the like to make your concept work.

 

[howandwhy99]

I like cheese.

Variable power level Classes. Thieves were 1250, Magic-Users 1500. Keeping these close enough and awarding XP individually meant the overlapping variance was rarely felt. Level 2 Thieves (1250-2500 XP) were about as difficult to play as M-Us.

Variable power level Races. I think Wizards is going to attempt what Rodney Thompson called Parity here, but I also believe it is only partially necessary. Ability Scores were pluses and negatives to Class abilities. Racial abilities were all the other abilities that were outside of Class abilities. As long as everyone has Parity in Ability scores, then the classes should be okay for any of the races (barring customization of races by campaign, where halflings have less STR, etc.)

Also Variable power level Ability Scores (randomly rolled), and Variable power level Equipment (wealth totals, magic items, etc.) Everything outside of Class abilities and races can fluctuate similarly to class. Starting racial abilities are within a given range. So too are starting equipment resources (e.g. 3d6x10). So long as the benefits and penalties do not over stack any particular class (those powers being amongst the easiest to advance and hardest to lose), then we can more easily assess a relative overall balance within a spectrum for each character for each realm of play.


I'd suggest class & racial cultural strictures as well to allow for greater benefits early on (the biggest show dog here being the Paladin), but a lot of that style of play is currently unpopular.

For instance, limitations with penalties seems clear enough (non-proficient with a weapon, but can use it with penalty for example), but when penalties become too game changing for some players (like losing one's class and having to play their way back into it) then strictures can feel less like mere limitations and more like punishments. When the whole is a 1-and-done deal, as with no ex-Paladins ever coming back, then +10% in benefits over every other class sounds a bit more understandable. Paladin's actions are highly limited or all of their benefits are lost permanently for the life of the character. Every action is still a player option though. Every choice remains ever present. It's simply those self selected (I prefer self-defined) Paladin Code commitments limit the number of easy routes to use the benefits they are given. All of a sudden certain moral choices become dilemmas with something close to permanent character death on the line. That "never fall from grace" commitment with the choices routinely in their face game design is a feature for those attracted to the class, not a bug.

 

[was]

I'd like to see a system where race adds almost nothing.

 

[tvknight415]

From Wisconsin... so I like cheese.

But, class should be #1 in determining powers, background and race about 50/50 for the rest. I'd keep backgrounds fairly generic/simple though. Noble, peasant, aesetic (sp?), savage, merchant, wanderer, or something like that.

 

[Hassassin]

Class and background overlap so much that it's difficult to draw lines. Are your skill choices in 3e class or background? How about your feats? What if they are bonus feats from class or race?

I think race should account for about 20% of a character's abilities. It's ok if that percentage goes down as you level up, just not as fast as in 3e.

The rest should be a player choice. Almost 80% class by default, but depending on how much background you want for the character that goes down.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I wouldn't mind seeing Race as Class coming back as an option.

 

[thedungeondelver]

I don't agree that "99% CLASS" is where AD&D lies. A lot of what you can do in AD&D relies on race. Wanna level endlessly in any class? Human. Resist sleep spells with 90% efficacy, see in the dark, find secret doors, use swords & bows at +1? Elf! etc.

Honestly the breakdown in AD&D is 50/50, not 99/1.

(so I said 50/50)

 

[Essenti]

I also feel race should not advance with level, at least not very much. To me it seems too gamist if characters advance racially. How does a character's race change as the story develops?

I could understand this logic for otherworldly races, but for standard human/demi-humans, this just doesn't make any kind of sense to me outside of being a game element. Perhaps racial advancement could be a feature for an optional race, but it doesn't set well with me for dwarves, elves, halflings, and humans...

At first level I think the importance split should be 1/3 each for Race, Class, and Theme. Every level thereafter, a character's race should mechanically become less and less important, and really only server to flavor an adventurer's future career, not define it.

Something I'd also like to mention... I don't want themes to merely be backgrounds. Themes should be what the word implies, a theme for that character: What kind of cleric/fighter/magic-user/rogue are they?

A fighter who wants to be a tracker and a scout could choose the Ranger theme or maybe select the Knight theme if they want to be an honorable defender of the people. A magic-user who wants to become a master of arcane spell casting might choose the Wizard theme, or maybe they want to combine sword and sorcery as a Sword-mage. A cleric who want's to be a paragon of truth and justice might choose the Paladin theme, or they might instead choose the Priest theme to focus on channeling the divine power of their deity. A rogue might choose the swashbuckling Corsair theme, or perhaps the seedy Thief theme.

I would like to see class determining the basic mechanic a character uses for combat, interaction, and exploration. But a character's theme would define how those abilities develop as they advance. Multi-classing would be replaced by multi-themed characters.

 

[Tallifer]

I like the Fourth Edition's clean, balanced and transparent definition of racial and class benefits. I also like two other important albeit unofficial and often neglected mantras for the Fourth Edition: "Everything is core" and "Everything is reskinnable."

A Genasi makes a terrific Tactical Warlord. But I simply wrote Human on my character sheet for my mechanically Earthborn Genasi Warlord. His ancestor mated with the daughter of the spirit of a nearby mountain.

Thus I like the mechanical variety that class, race, theme and background can give a characetr: but I use them as inspiration for my own story concerning a character. I do not always want to duplicate the story of a thousand other Elfin Rangers: let me use those extremely effective mechanics to roleplay a Thern from the Barsoomian Vally Dor who shoots two radium pistols.