Justification for favored classes... Is there any?

[CaptainCalico]

Re: Re: Re: Justification for favored classes... Is there any?

More inclined, sure, but I'd like to think it was a cultural thing, not an inborn trait. The way the rules are written, an elf's ability at Wizarding is as ultimately inherant as his bonus to DEX.

I agree. In my game world favored class is a function of culture, not race. One elven kingdom has fighter as its favored class because they are next to a kingdom eager for conquest, while another has bard because that kingdom was founded by bards. If your character comes from the main port city of the continent then your favored class is rogue, regeradless of race, because the culture of the city fosters rogue-like behavior, and so on.

 

[Janos Antero]

Originally posted by Bagpuss:
For example and Elf could be a Fighter 6/ Cleric 7/Wizard 2 with no XP penalty, but a human being the same class split would suffer the XP penalty (as his Cleric levels would be ignored) even though humans are ment to be more versitile not less.

That strangeness is why I allowed humans to ignore one class of their choosing. Too often the highest level wasn't advantgeous, even though it was intended that way. For whatever reason, this nearly exact situation came up more than once in the last campaign I ran.

 

[Gez]

Nobody has Bard, Ranger, Paladin, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Sorcerer or any specilist wizard other than Illusionist as a favored class.

Faun have bard.
Centaurs and Gnolls and Wood elves have ranger.
Aasimar have paladin.
Githzerai have monk.
Wild elves have sorcerer.

I'm pretty sure I could find other examples if I weren't too lazy to flip through my books.

so why not: Elves: Wizard, Ranger, Druid, -or- Gnomes: Illusionist, Fighter, Expert -or- Dwarves: Fighter, Cleric, Barbarian?

I would rather say:
Elf: Bard, Ranger, Wizard -- They love beauty too much to avoid the bard class, and I can't see them with a class that forbid them to use longbow and longsword
Gnome: Druid, Illusionist, Ranger -- Expert would be shafting them both mechanically (the NPC class sucks) and conceptually (bloody screaming death to all tinkers !!!), and the ranger class, with its militant aspect (fav. enemy with racial bonus to attack and AC) and nature aspect (animal friendship with speak with animals) is much more in tune with gnome sensibilities.
Dwarf: Cleric, Fighter, Samurai -- A lawful race with a barbarian fav. class is a big no-no for me, and beside I don't like the dirty battlerager stereotype. I rather see dwarves as samurais, clan-centered and honor-bound, with their devotion toward their ancestors and their ancestral weapons. Barring the Sams for their OAness and quasi-redundancy with Fighter, Rogue.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I like the idea of the FC mechanic, but I don't think it works very well.

Then again, even back in 1e, I always played that any race can be any class and reach any level. That's how I learned to play the game, though other gaming groups made me rein in those tendencies a little. I still never met anyone who followed demihuman level limits.

 

[Remathilis]

Re: Re: Re: Justification for favored classes... Is there any?

I heard a rumour that there was a guy in Japan somewhere playing a half-elf.

I think it's just an Urban Myth, though.

-Hyp.

Hey, I played a HALF-ELVEN BARD for 6 whole levels, just to see if it could be done.

People said I was brave, or foolish, or both...

 

[Gez]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Justification for favored classes... Is there any?

I heard a rumour that there was a guy in Japan somewhere playing a half-elf.

I think it's just an Urban Myth, though.

Hey, I played a HALF-ELVEN BARD for 6 whole levels, just to see if it could be done.

People said I was brave, or foolish, or both...

Our first D&D party was one gnome wizard, one halfling rogue, and two half-elves, one bard and one monk (!)... Well, the monk one was actually half-dark elf (!!), so as to have darkvision without getting -2 Cha and either -10 speed or -2 Int. And since then, everyone but me just play elves everytime they can (reasonnings being, usually "humans are boring and I think I can't roleplay another demihuman race than elves" for one, "after much thoughts, tests and simulations, the spellcasting prodigy grey elf is what will be the most advantageous after level 13, but I've hesitated for a long time with the strongheart halfling who does get a bonus feat..." for another, and "..." for the last).

Bards and monks have been taken again in another campaign, but not half-elves. Only because of the full-elf option, though.

 

[Arnwyn]

Re: Re: Re: Justification for favored classes... Is there any?

More inclined, sure, but I'd like to think it was a cultural thing, not an inborn trait. The way the rules are written, an elf's ability at Wizarding is as ultimately inherant as his bonus to DEX.

I'd like to think that elvin wizards would be a flavor thing, not actually enforced with bonuses or penalties in the rulebooks.

If they're going to break the steriotypes of the past editions and allow any race to be any class, why don't they go all the way, instead of leaving this pathetic remnant?

The argument of Balance:
Surely there was a way to balance humans other than to restrict all the other races (half elves, I admit, need more balancing). Maybe 4 extra skill points at first level? Another free feat at 10th level?

I think favored class belongs in the domain of Flavor Text (at most) and should not depart from it.

*shrug* It can be a cultural thing, if you want. Nobody's stopping you from changing it to best fit your campaign. And in fact, in most campaigns I'm aware of, it *is* cultural, and it *has* been changed. Look at the different subraces in the FRCS. Also look at SL. And, IIRC, Kalamar has some different ones to (again, IIRC). So therefore (just like the gods in the PHB), the favored classes can simply be considered "examples".

Is there another way to balance humans? Eh, maybe. I'm not sure if I care all that much either way. Sometimes these "pathetic remnants" aren't bad things. Not that everyone hasn't heard this before, but: if you don't like it, change it. I, for one, am very pleased that they included the favored class examples in the PHB, thankyouverymuch. Take them as gospel when no campaign setting does? Please.

 

[Kal Skid]

As a house rule, I added the following.

Human: Any
Half-Elf: Any
Elf: Wizard or Druid
Dwarf: Fighter or Cleric
Gnome: Wizard(if specialist, must still be able to cast Illusions) or Rogue.
Halfling: Rogue or Bard.

Racial favoured classes are chosen upon character creation. This gives a little more flexibility, but still keeps some of the old charm.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Just out of curiosity, why do those that have multiple FCs have it picked at Character Creation? What I mean is, if I'm in Kal Skid's game and I create a Halfling Fighter, why would I have to pick the Favored right then?

Again, just curious, not criticism...

 

[Kal Skid]

Just out of curiosity, why do those that have multiple FCs have it picked at Character Creation? What I mean is, if I'm in Kal Skid's game and I create a Halfling Fighter, why would I have to pick the Favored right then?

Again, just curious, not criticism...

Yeah, you would have to pick at creation. Choosing at character creation reflects the potential of that character. I don't like the idea of a Elven Wizard suddenly changing his/her background to reflect potential as a Druid. Somewhat restrictive, but still more flexible than the stardard favoured classes system.