-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
dwarf as a class
- Thread starter Rex Blunder
- Start date
Nivenus
First Post
For those who really want race to feel different, here's an idea.
I wouldn't be entirely opposed to doing the PHB in volumes by race. You'd have the human sourcebook, the elven sourcebook, the dwarven sourcebook and so on. Each would contain information about classes, races, and what not, but it would be built around the idea of playing that specific race, allowing the author(s) to give each race more distinct feel and mechanics. Sort of similar to how Fantasy Flight has more than one rulebook for playing characters in WH40K.
The problem, however, lies in the fact that D&D has so many races. Sure, you say, most of those can be added in supplements. But can they really? Not if we're doing it in this fashion, with race being so mechanically important and consequential: the workload would simply be too much and most of the niche races would probably get lost in the dust.
I think, mechanically, this is the main problem with making racial "classes." There are other problems, of course, but in game design the main issue is that if you make the three nonhuman iconic races a kind of class, than you're kind of implicitly asking for all the other races to be built as classes, along with rules for playing them the AD&D way. That's just not feasible.
I wouldn't be entirely opposed to doing the PHB in volumes by race. You'd have the human sourcebook, the elven sourcebook, the dwarven sourcebook and so on. Each would contain information about classes, races, and what not, but it would be built around the idea of playing that specific race, allowing the author(s) to give each race more distinct feel and mechanics. Sort of similar to how Fantasy Flight has more than one rulebook for playing characters in WH40K.
The problem, however, lies in the fact that D&D has so many races. Sure, you say, most of those can be added in supplements. But can they really? Not if we're doing it in this fashion, with race being so mechanically important and consequential: the workload would simply be too much and most of the niche races would probably get lost in the dust.
I think, mechanically, this is the main problem with making racial "classes." There are other problems, of course, but in game design the main issue is that if you make the three nonhuman iconic races a kind of class, than you're kind of implicitly asking for all the other races to be built as classes, along with rules for playing them the AD&D way. That's just not feasible.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Hero
I liked Arcana's Evolved concept of "racial class levels". You didn't have to take them, but you could, and it made you more in line with the "traditional" example of the race. Only problem may be that AE deliberately had - at least for D&D - non-traditional races. Dog-People, Lion-People, Giants, Fey, so the tradition is more weakly defined.
3E/AE style multiclassing has certain drawbacks, but a system that is more like 3.x than 4E in multiclassing could cover this.
So "Dwarf" is a race and a class at the same time. You can choose to be basically a "traditional" Dwarf, that has all the "tunnel fighter", "axe-swinging", "giant-killer", "miner", "crafter" and "beer-consuming" archetypical features you have. Or you can choose to go Dwarf Wizard and just dabble a little in the archetype.
One of 4E goal was to make race count for more. It didn't really achieve that - maybe better than 3E, but still not enough.
I think there is a good argument for having races as classes simply predicated on the idea that classes are about archetype. And the archetype isn't really Dwarf Fighter or Elven Fighter/Mage. It's Dwarf, it's Elf.
But of course, the joy in roleplaying can be both playing an archetype, and playing against archetype. So the system needs to be flexible enough to allow both.
3E/AE style multiclassing has certain drawbacks, but a system that is more like 3.x than 4E in multiclassing could cover this.
So "Dwarf" is a race and a class at the same time. You can choose to be basically a "traditional" Dwarf, that has all the "tunnel fighter", "axe-swinging", "giant-killer", "miner", "crafter" and "beer-consuming" archetypical features you have. Or you can choose to go Dwarf Wizard and just dabble a little in the archetype.
One of 4E goal was to make race count for more. It didn't really achieve that - maybe better than 3E, but still not enough.
I think there is a good argument for having races as classes simply predicated on the idea that classes are about archetype. And the archetype isn't really Dwarf Fighter or Elven Fighter/Mage. It's Dwarf, it's Elf.
But of course, the joy in roleplaying can be both playing an archetype, and playing against archetype. So the system needs to be flexible enough to allow both.
Race as class, no thank you. We got out of that in 1e and I see no reason it should go back. Separating race and class made sense and opened up tons of options that let you get away from "Dwarf=Gimli." <Player of Dwarf> "Yeah, but my dwarf uses a crossbow along with his hand axe!" <Other players> "Ooo. Aaaah."
It is, I think inherently limiting to the number of types of characters that can be created.
Obviously, the number of classes that are going to be included in the first publication of 5e is, I'm sure, a huge [set of] decision[s.]
Just the base 4? One sub-class for each? 3 sub-classes for each? Make EVERY thing its own "base class" so you have...what 12?...15?...25? You can't produce a book with that all in one set.
Your race and class are the crux of a character concept. To say, "I'm a Dwarf" (to cover both) is, yes, "simpler" but limiting the PC to however the archetype is presented and/or whatever special abilities that race has.
Offering "racial levels" or addition racial feats you can get as you increase in power to customize outside of the "Dwarf" or "Elf" archetype sounds like a nice idea...but it also sounds like a whole 'nother circle of mechanics and specifics to keep track of...an unnecessary complexity, to my view.
Make them optional rules, perhaps. Or, just "go back" and have "Dwarf get these few [say 3?] extras [abilities], Elf gets these 3, etc..."
And if 5e, as many are suggesting here, is going to be all about the "modularity" then there is only so much/many "options/modules" one can offer before you start getting into ridiculous page count.
Which speaks to something to keep in mind in general, 5e is a shiny glowy beacon of what might be, at this point. But, as with every previous edition, there is no possible way it will be "all things to all players"...at least, not in the initial beginner starting set/books (and yes, I would like to see a set/box, myself).
If it were up to me (and, frankly, isn't that what we're all doing/thinking in this forum? hahaha) I'd go with the basic 4 races to start (human, elf, dwarf, halfling -hairfooted variety please! Take the shoes back OFF the halflings!)
While I would like to see more than the 4 base classes to start with, but we'll assume those (Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Magic-user) for the purposes of this dream-suggestion:
1) Allow Multi-classing for all races (including humans).
2) Only, ever, 2 classes maybe be multi-classed. That are chosen/started at level 1 (no more "Figher 5/Thief 3/Cleric 1/Kitchen-sink-one-man-adventuring-machine 9")! And ONLY "base classes" may be combined...No sub-classes, 'Paladin/MU", "Druid/Barbarian" or whatever, no.
If you don't have the stats (or the race doesn't allow) to be the "Paladin" you originally wanted, play a Fighter/Cleric. Can't make the cut for a "Ranger", "Fighter/Thief" gets you pretty close.
3) Non-human Races do not have level limits.
4) Racial class restrictions are optional rules with suggested recommendations that harken back to the "classic" archetypes (i.e. if you don't want Dwarves to be MUs or Rangers, then you can do that. If you don't want Elf Paladins or Halfling Clerics, you can do that. )
But for standard rules, you could be a Dwarf Cleric or MU or Fighter/Cleric or Thief/MU or whatever combo of those 4...covers a bunch of different kinds of adventuring types and styles without tons of extra racial abilities or levels or feats to keep track of.
You have your set of racial abilities (preferably without ability bonuses) and what you really need to keep track of is what your Classes can do.
But I suppose I'm getting a bit off topic, here. Point is, "Dwarf as class?" No thanks.
--SD
It is, I think inherently limiting to the number of types of characters that can be created.
Obviously, the number of classes that are going to be included in the first publication of 5e is, I'm sure, a huge [set of] decision[s.]
Just the base 4? One sub-class for each? 3 sub-classes for each? Make EVERY thing its own "base class" so you have...what 12?...15?...25? You can't produce a book with that all in one set.
Your race and class are the crux of a character concept. To say, "I'm a Dwarf" (to cover both) is, yes, "simpler" but limiting the PC to however the archetype is presented and/or whatever special abilities that race has.
Offering "racial levels" or addition racial feats you can get as you increase in power to customize outside of the "Dwarf" or "Elf" archetype sounds like a nice idea...but it also sounds like a whole 'nother circle of mechanics and specifics to keep track of...an unnecessary complexity, to my view.
Make them optional rules, perhaps. Or, just "go back" and have "Dwarf get these few [say 3?] extras [abilities], Elf gets these 3, etc..."
And if 5e, as many are suggesting here, is going to be all about the "modularity" then there is only so much/many "options/modules" one can offer before you start getting into ridiculous page count.
Which speaks to something to keep in mind in general, 5e is a shiny glowy beacon of what might be, at this point. But, as with every previous edition, there is no possible way it will be "all things to all players"...at least, not in the initial beginner starting set/books (and yes, I would like to see a set/box, myself).
If it were up to me (and, frankly, isn't that what we're all doing/thinking in this forum? hahaha) I'd go with the basic 4 races to start (human, elf, dwarf, halfling -hairfooted variety please! Take the shoes back OFF the halflings!)
While I would like to see more than the 4 base classes to start with, but we'll assume those (Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Magic-user) for the purposes of this dream-suggestion:
1) Allow Multi-classing for all races (including humans).
2) Only, ever, 2 classes maybe be multi-classed. That are chosen/started at level 1 (no more "Figher 5/Thief 3/Cleric 1/Kitchen-sink-one-man-adventuring-machine 9")! And ONLY "base classes" may be combined...No sub-classes, 'Paladin/MU", "Druid/Barbarian" or whatever, no.
If you don't have the stats (or the race doesn't allow) to be the "Paladin" you originally wanted, play a Fighter/Cleric. Can't make the cut for a "Ranger", "Fighter/Thief" gets you pretty close.
3) Non-human Races do not have level limits.
4) Racial class restrictions are optional rules with suggested recommendations that harken back to the "classic" archetypes (i.e. if you don't want Dwarves to be MUs or Rangers, then you can do that. If you don't want Elf Paladins or Halfling Clerics, you can do that. )
But for standard rules, you could be a Dwarf Cleric or MU or Fighter/Cleric or Thief/MU or whatever combo of those 4...covers a bunch of different kinds of adventuring types and styles without tons of extra racial abilities or levels or feats to keep track of.
You have your set of racial abilities (preferably without ability bonuses) and what you really need to keep track of is what your Classes can do.
But I suppose I'm getting a bit off topic, here. Point is, "Dwarf as class?" No thanks.
--SD
Knightfall
World of Kulan DM
Link?
