Balance bwtween Class, Race, and Background

[triqui]

I like 99% of cheeses

Now more seriously, I think race should be important, as well as background.

I think Warhammer Age of Recknoning Online gives you a good example. There, a "fighter" who is "elf" (Swordmaster) has very different rules than a "fighter" that is a dwarf (IronBreaker). Same goes with elves "rangers" compared to goblin ones or human vs dark elf spellcasters

I think in pen and paper RPG you need extra layers, not just a few combinations. But elven "knights" should be quite different than human "knights" or dwarven "knights".

 

[Sunseeker]

I like 99% of cheeses

Now more seriously, I think race should be important, as well as background.

I think Warhammer Age of Recknoning Online gives you a good example. There, a "fighter" who is "elf" (Swordmaster) has very different rules than a "fighter" that is a dwarf (IronBreaker). Same goes with elves "rangers" compared to goblin ones or human vs dark elf spellcasters

I think in pen and paper RPG you need extra layers, not just a few combinations. But elven "knights" should be quite different than human "knights" or dwarven "knights".

But must they?

Having a dwarven, elven, drow, tiefling, ect.. fighter variant is fine, but how do we reconcile that concept with the fact that each world and each game may not contain these "universal truths".

 

[triqui]

But must they?

Having a dwarven, elven, drow, tiefling, ect.. fighter variant is fine, but how do we reconcile that concept with the fact that each world and each game may not contain these "universal truths".

Imho, yes. Real world samurai warriors are quite different from real world french cavaliers and real world aztech jaguar warriors to merit different rules, and they co-existed in XV century (even if they didn't share same locations). And they were humans all of them. Dwarven, elven, halfling and human knights should be even more different.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

But must they?

Having a dwarven, elven, drow, tiefling, ect.. fighter variant is fine, but how do we reconcile that concept with the fact that each world and each game may not contain these "universal truths".

I would be quite fine with a few "generic" but useful and flavorful options on race and theme to cover such overlap. Technically, all such things should belong in the class, but that puts us pack to either making races/themes not matter much or making each race/theme wildly different.

So in the interest of gameplay and ease of building characters, nothing wrong with putting "improved initiative" as a racial choice--for pretty much everyone. In fact, if you had a few such things tied to race (and theme), then you can also easily distinguish certain extreme by what gets left out as an option. A "sloth" race can't take improved initiative.

In a more or less equal division of responsibility (or even something like 50/25/25), there are bound to be a host of elements that could plausibly go in either of two different spots. Instead of shoving all of those one way or the other, I'd divide them up.

 

[Sunseeker]

Imho, yes. Real world samurai warriors are quite different from real world french cavaliers and real world aztech jaguar warriors to merit different rules, and they co-existed in XV century (even if they didn't share same locations). And they were humans all of them. Dwarven, elven, halfling and human knights should be even more different.

I believe you misunderstood as your example does not relate to my question.

Those warriors you cite are all from this world. There are multiple D&D planes, worlds, settings, universes in which few to many things could be the same. There is no reason that dwarves on two entirely distinct worlds should somehow create the exact same class. If I have island-dwelling black-skinned dwarves in a mostly fishing culture, why are they going to have a rock&stone-themed fighter? They aren't. They shouldn't.

Having racial classes is neat, but the problem is that they fit into a very, very narrow set of lore.

 

[triqui]

I believe you misunderstood as your example does not relate to my question.

Those warriors you cite are all from this world. There are multiple D&D planes, worlds, settings, universes in which few to many things could be the same. There is no reason that dwarves on two entirely distinct worlds should somehow create the exact same class. If I have island-dwelling black-skinned dwarves in a mostly fishing culture, why are they going to have a rock&stone-themed fighter? They aren't. They shouldn't.

Having racial classes is neat, but the problem is that they fit into a very, very narrow set of lore.

Yes, dwarven warriors from Dark Sun would be setting specific. That does not mean they shouldn't be different from elven warriors from Dark Sun.

Your fishy dwarves probably won't have +2 to stonecutting and appraise either. If your fishy dwarves happen to have delicate stomach and frail health, they won't have +4 vs poison. And if your fishy dwarves have long legs they might have 35' movement. But none of those traits will exclude standard dwarves to have certain traits. Just like becouse your elves might be afraid from magic it doesn't mean PHB elves can't have Magic Affinity as a racial trait. That's what setting specific rules (and home rules) are for

 

[Minigiant]

There are multiple D&D planes, worlds, settings, universes in which few to many things could be the same. There is no reason that dwarves on two entirely distinct worlds should somehow create the exact same class. If I have island-dwelling black-skinned dwarves in a mostly fishing culture, why are they going to have a rock&stone-themed fighter? They aren't. They shouldn't.

You know...
this is why I am not extremely fond of racial feats and want a good deal of hard crunch in each races and themes from the start.

 

[Sunseeker]

Yes, dwarven warriors from Dark Sun would be setting specific. That does not mean they shouldn't be different from elven warriors from Dark Sun.

Your fishy dwarves probably won't have +2 to stonecutting and appraise either. If your fishy dwarves happen to have delicate stomach and frail health, they won't have +4 vs poison. And if your fishy dwarves have long legs they might have 35' movement. But none of those traits will exclude standard dwarves to have certain traits. Just like becouse your elves might be afraid from magic it doesn't mean PHB elves can't have Magic Affinity as a racial trait. That's what setting specific rules (and home rules) are for

Just as long as the option remains open for players to build both a standard fighter and a racial-themed fighter, I don't have a problem with racial classes. It just shouldn't be mandatory that ALL dwarves MUST be a particular racial variant build.

 

[Tallifer]

Just as long as the option remains open for players to build both a standard fighter and a racial-themed fighter, I don't have a problem with racial classes. It just shouldn't be mandatory that ALL dwarves MUST be a particular racial variant build.

I agree with your point of view. I think one solution is to allow a player to roll up a Wilden Archer and call him a forest dwarf. Otherwise every race has to have a zillion variants and pages of alternate racial powers (like Pathfinder does) to suit different builds and conceits.

 

[Sunseeker]

I agree with your point of view. I think one solution is to allow a player to roll up a Wilden Archer and call him a forest dwarf. Otherwise every race has to have a zillion variants and pages of alternate racial powers (like Pathfinder does) to suit different builds and conceits.

If 5e makes races, classes, feats and powers all easily reflavored, then I think that would go a long way towards versatile creation without needing a billion variant feats and classes.

Instead of Stone Cunning, we would just have "Cunning", which would offer the same bonus, but require the player to decide what terrain or objects it applies to when they select it.