Back to Basics: Races as Class

[Meatboy]

Wow thanks for all the replys. Lots of good stuff here.

As it stands I only want to use the four core classes without multiclassing. The idea of classes as being archetypes really appeals to me. I would like classes to be a common starting point, a chassis, that I can hang my character ideas.
I was thinking about racial classes acting as hybrids, which has been brought up a few times so far. I don't see this as being much of a stretch because I feel clerics already fill a hybrid niche, that of a fighter/mage. Plus they have a few of their own things, such as turning and different spell lists, which make them unique. I do however think that effort must be taken to ensure that racial classes remain simple while still retaining as much flavour as possible to keep them interesting.

 

[Sunseeker]

Yes, the best implementation of this idea would definitely be to have new (or at least new-ish) classes rather than hybrids.

It's compelling to think about humans having Hoplites who give defense bonuses for formations, or dwarven engineers with abilities to forge weapons and build traps.

It's one thing that bums me out a bit about DDN, with boiled down, basic races with mundane racial features it really takes away some of the uniqueness that races have built up over the years.

 

[Dwimmerlied]

I love it as an option

me too!

 

[Dwimmerlied]

(By the way, anybody remember Gauntlet, or Heroquest? Good times. I don't recall anyone ever complaining that those games perpetuated the negative stereotype of elves as flighty archers or dwarves as grumbling tinkerers. Maybe that is exactly what made them good times.)

I do! It was one of my intros to the genre. Many an afternoon taken up calling "Two skulls and a shield!"

But while noone complained, I reckon many folk jumped ship when they realised they could play any character they wanted.

Personally I like the idea; I think that default assumptions give flavour to the world. I think a good system might incorporate these (perhaps in the basic version of next?), and I'd still get a kick out of playing the elf as a class. Other options should definitely be provided tho!

 

[Dwimmerlied]

Also, for the sake of reminiscence...

[video=youtube;FY_YRatOInA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY_YRatOInA[/video]

Fire of WOFF!!!

 

[Dethklok]

It's one thing that bums me out a bit about DDN, with boiled down, basic races with mundane racial features it really takes away some of the uniqueness that races have built up over the years.

Care to elaborate?

Personally I like the idea; I think that default assumptions give flavour to the world... Other options should definitely be provided tho!

Frankly I think that's a powerful key to roleplaying games. Beginning Players (and GMs - everybody) need just a few options at the start to help them build a sense of what the game is even about, before they know what's interesting or makes sense to create. But they can't be limited by these starting options, or they will outgrow the system.

The trouble is that many well-intentioned efforts to improve the game end up adding depth and complexity while compromising the simplicity that's crucial to taking those first steps into a new world. So I really think it's a great idea to have "basic" class-races, with the option to choose other class/race combinations.

 

[Sunseeker]

Care to elaborate?

Single-stat increases with no options for starters, yes we have sub-races, but the change is so minimal it's a poor excuse for a sub-race.
Boring features such as extra armor proficiency, or highly situational features.
Mundane racial features like "darkvision"...oooo creatures that live underground see better in the dark, who'd ave thought!

There's really nothing that makes them substantially different from each other. Oh maybe you don't have to sleep as much or you are the rock-whisperer. But these aren't features that would lead to building a full-featured class from, or even creating significant social differences.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I like 4e's idea of adding active abilities to the critters, and I would really love it if NEXT followed suit. And yeah, sub-races need a bump in significance.

 

[Meatboy]

Really if 5e can avoid 50 different elves I'll be happy.

 

[Dwimmerlied]

Really if 5e can avoid 50 different elves I'll be happy.

I agree. I personally dispense with a distinction between wood and wild elves, my wood elves cover the bases here. Same with High and grey. I stick with just high; they can cover both concepts. Other than dark elves, everything else IMO is probably obsolete. Same with gnomes; forest, deep, rock and whisper gnomes are all the same thing IMC.

A good system will provide the tools to make the 50 types for those who want them tho