So what races and classes do we consider core?

[CleanCutRogue]

Like most of the posters (it's a definite trend, WotC - pay heed!) I prefer the "core" book to have the following "core" races. These are at the root of all editions of D&D, and the whole idea is a modular approach that speaks to all edition of gamers, right?

Races:
- Human
- Elf
- Dwarf
- Halfling

Additionally, since you want the core book to reach out to all editions of gamers, I believe you should have a section of the player's book that details each of the races that have appeared in all editions of the game, but "ask your DM's permission before selecting one of these, as he may prohibit them in his game or setting"). This wouldn't include very setting-specific races (the mul from dark sun and minotaurs/draconians from dragonlance, for instance, don't belong here), just stuff that appeared in various Player's Handbook offerings of the past. That includes the various sub-types of elves (wood, wild, high, dark/drow, eladrin, whatever), sub-types of dwarves (remember these? hill dwarf, mountain dwarf, etc?), sub-types of halflings (tallfellow, hairfoot, etc.), crossbreeds (half-orcs, half-elves, etc.) and the various stand-alones such as the uber-cool ones from 4e. Yes, gnomes belong in this group

Classes:
This might be my old-school mentality kicking in but I'll temper it with a little new-school thinking. All we need in "core" is the four core character classes:

- Fighter (or "Warrior" if you must)
- Magic-User (or "Mage" or "Wizard" if you must)
- Rogue (or "Thief" if you must)
- Cleric (or "Priest" if you must)

As has been mentioned here many times... you can build any character concept with these classes if you build them right. For instance, in 3.x edition you could basically take a level in any class when you gained a character level - that alone would allow you to build rangers (take levels of fighter, rogue, magic-user, mix to taste), paladins (fighter and cleric levels), and just about anything else. Although I HATE the scope creep that FEATS created, I do like having character customization options. So if there exists class features that are selectable at character creation, and you also have the ability to select levels in different classes when you gain a character level, then you can effectively build any character you can imagine without having to call him new names like "warlord" or "illusionist" or whatever.

 

[Dire Bare]

I'm with those who wish to see the "classic" four races (human, elf, dwarf, halfling) and "classic" four classes (fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue) only in the intro book/box. I do think that almost every other race introduced at various points could make it into supplements, but important races would include most of what everyone else on the thread is pushing for . . . we can skip the raptorans, crystal guys (what were they called?), etc.

Not sure if this is a good idea, but as I've never liked the term "halfling" (at least from the halfling's perspective, it makes a great condescending racial slur). I would rename the race "Hin", from the Forgotten Realms and Mystara settings. I wouldn't mind "Hobbit", but that's never going to happen!

One of the cosmology changes I liked in 4E was the eladrin and elf split, I LOVE IT! I would put elves in the core book/box, and then introduce their cousins the eladrin (and drow) in an elfy supplement later that same year. However, I would like to see the two races differentiated more, but yet the eladrin need to keep the high/grey elf theme . . . not sure how to do that.

 

[Kaodi]

I guess it is unlikely that I am going to get the ~10+ more experience I need to hit name level before 3000 posts, so I might as well bite the bullet and just say what I was thinking.

First of all, I am in complete agreement with many of you that the core races should be limited to Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, and Human. Nothing particular interesting about that.

On the issue of classes though, I will restate something which I mentioned a few weeks ago in a different thread. For classes, I would choose Cleric, Fighter, Mage, and Rogue. What I mean by these, however, is not quite what everyone else means. I think that at the basic level of complexity, the Cleric and Mage should be something more akin to a Warpriest or Swordmage. That is to say that I think all of the base classes should be at least passable warriors, able to survive the rigours of adventuring without having their hand held all the time, the way the traditional wizard would.

With this idea of increasing levels of complexity, however, I think this actually does something else that might be valuable for the game. Prior to 4th Edition, Wizards and Clerics usually got access to a lot of major " game changers " about half-way through the campaign that did a lot to complicate the game. Clerics and Mages now would either not get access to many spells like that, or would get access to them later in the game. Then, at a higher level of complexity, their would be the Priest and Wizard classes that served as the more fragile but more magically skilled counterparts to the Cleric and Mage. You might even say that the Fighter and Rogue embody a similar distinction, as a Rogue is both more fragile and more skilled than a Fighter, though since it does not bring amazing and diverse magical effects to bear it is does not really get more " complex " .

 

[Crazy Jerome]

As long as we are dreaming, I'd really like to see the "culture" part stripped entirely out of races, and added back as "culture" specifically as its own element. They could do worse than rob the RuneQuest list: primitive, nomad, barbarian, and civilized. But I think they could do a bit better than that, if they thought about it awhile.

With those four cultures, four race and four classes (you know which ones), would allow a lot of mixes. "primitive elf fighter" conjures a whole different picture than "civilized elf wizard".

 

[howandwhy99]

Ducks, I wanna see the duckman class *quack*

and we can all play NPC classes as core for once:
Bearer/Porter, Carpenter, Leather Worker, Limner, Linkboy, Mason, Pack Handler, Tailor, Teamster, and Valet/Lackey. We'll have to earn our way into the *expert* classes.

"Ooooh! I found a copper!"

 

[Mengu]

I think the races can be grouped, and I don't mind seeing sub-races, particularly for humans.

Human: Urban man, woodsmen, highman (or mountain man, or other strong-trope), nomad, mixed breed (half-elf, half-orc, mul)
Fey: Wood elf, high elf, drow, gnome
Dwarf: Sun dwarf, deep dwarf
Halfling: Shire halfling, river folk
Beastman (or monster-man): Dragonborn, tiefling, shifter, half-ogre (half-orc could move into this category, or it could be in both categories, allowing you to play a half-orc who is more human, or a half-orc who is more orc).

I want some options and ecology out of the gate. These don't all have to appear at the same time, but the grouping will help reduce the problem of "my race isn't getting any support". For all I care, Genasi, Goliath, and Deva could simply be mixed breed types of humans, those touched by the elements, those with giant blood, and those with the blood (or blessing) of a celestial.

I think with this sort of grouping, races could be presented in such a way that the stats don't overwhelm the book, and the flavor of the race can manifest itself in a feature or two, while sharing features and support of the overall group.

I suppose another way to go about this is to lighten up racial mechanics, and put more emphasis on backgrounds. A typical wood elf would have the wood elf background. This leads to a straight forward choice for those who want it. But for the mixed breed human that wants to be "brought up among elves" this same background could be used. To take it another step. Wood elves could be rangers by default (we are after all talking about a version mash). But if the mixed breed human wanted to be a ranger, they would have the option to do so.

For classes, I'm happy with diversity, but depending on the way they design classes, some of them could be rolled together. In some form I'd like to see
Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, and Bard. But I don't care if they make Barbarian and Paladin as subclasses for Fighter, or if they roll Wizard, Cleric and Druid into one magic user class.

When 5e comes out, I know one player is going to walk up to me and say "I want to play a half-orc barbarian", and another player is going to say "I want to play a bard". This is exactly what happened in 4e. For the former player, I had to create a home brew half-orc, and he resigned to playing a ranger instead of barbarian, and the latter player begrudgingly agreed to try a different class, and started up a half-elf warlock. I want options out of the gate. Really, I won't be overwhelmed if there are 10 classes. Each player is going to be playing one class. So just give me the options.

 

[Greg K]

As long as we are dreaming, I'd really like to see the "culture" part stripped entirely out of races, and added back as "culture" specifically as its own element. They could do worse than rob the RuneQuest list: primitive, nomad, barbarian, and civilized. But I think they could do a bit better than that, if they thought about it awhile.

I agree. They started doing this in 4e by removing most of the non-biological aspects in 4e. I would go with themes/backgrounds

Aquatic
Arctic
Desert
Desert, Nomad
Forest
Jungle
Mountain
Plains
Plains, horse nomad
Subterranean
Swamp
Rural
Urban
Urban, noble
Urban, street
Special: Wizard Apprentice
Special: Monastic Training
Special: Temple (by deity)

 

[Kaodi]

I guess it is unlikely that I am going to get the ~10+ more experience I need to hit name level before 3000 posts, so I might as well bite the bullet and just say what I was thinking.

Apparently I was wrong, [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION]. I only needed that one extra experience point, .

In any case, I was actually thinking after my last post about breaking down spellcasting classes according to an entirely different kind of " source " than in 4E, and wondering whether this should influence the list of " core " classes. This distinction is between magic you receive from other beings and forces, magic that is within you, and magic that is just there for anyone to manipulate who is willing to learn how. This would create groupings like Cleric/Paladin/Warlock, Sorcerer, and Bard/Druid/Wizard (well, Druid might be a little contentious). I might call basic classes representing these distinctions Invoker, Sorcerer, and Mage, or something like that.

( w00t , 3000th post! w00t, Name Level! )

 

[Wormwood]

Humans
Drizzt Do'Dark and scary
Legolas DPS
Gimli McAxe
Galadriel Magicelf
Kender Baggins
Chewbacca (dragondudes, orcs, whatever)

oh yeah, classes:
Guy with Sword
Snarky DPS
Magic Seige Weapon
Combat Medic

 

[miscreationist]

Races
- Human
- Dwarf
- Elf
- Halfling

Classes
- Fighter
- Cleric
- Mage
- Rogue

These classes are the core (though possibly without the Rogue or Cleric if classes are built modularly). The rest are specializations or combinations of these. The races are the essentials for fantasy gaming, other races are just gravy.