Balance bwtween Class, Race, and Background

[Starfox]

There has been talk of having a 5E character basically comprised of 3 parts - class, race, and background. The way I read it, these will be independent choices - you can choose any combination or race, class, and background (tough some options might have better synergies, of course). Assuming this is so, how much of each character should come from each part?

To make this somewhat simpler, I'll ask the question "How Much of a character should depend on class", mashing race and background together.

If class is considered "crunchy" and race/background is considered "flavor", another way to say this is "how much of a character's abilities should depend on crunch, and how much on flavor?"

 

[Starfox]

I said where I consider various editions of DnD to be in this scale to give benchmarks - I am not trying to say what is right or wrong. But if my percentages seem vague, having some points of reference should help.

 

[delericho]

I would prefer a system where race gives a small number of fixed bonuses/powers/qualities plus access to a whole range of racial powers and feats, and where class likewise gives a small number of fixed bonuses/powers/qualities plus access to the whole range of class powers and feats. (Basically, like 4e, except that in addition to 'Fighter' powers and 'Wizard' powers, and so on, there are also 'Dwarf' powers and 'Elf' powers, and so on.)

I would be inclined not to include background/theme as part of the baseline of such a system, but an optional module could certainly then add themes that give access to a whole bunch of other feats and powers (but not the fixed bonuses/powers/qualities, for game-balance reasons).

Under such a model, race and class would be equally important, although it would really be the choices of feats and powers that would customise a character.

 

[Li Shenron]

I voted "I like cheese", more precisely when nicely laid out on a buffet table.

Which means, I like class to be the most important choice, race to make at least some minor difference but with the option of making it significantly more important if you want (thus anything from 1% to e.g. 30% or even more, player's choice), and background to work mostly as a set of modifiers, from 0% to e.g. 10-20% or more, again player's choice.

Thus, none of the fixed poll options worked for me

 

[Minigiant]

I prefer it to be about 60-75% class.

To me I want a character to be

¼ General Class feature
⅛ Class based Ability Score Preferences
⅛ Racial and Background Features
⅛ Racial Ability Score Preference
⅜ Individual Aspects of the Character.

That put class, race/background, and individual at a 3: 2 :3 proportion.

And then Class and Race would be in a 60%/40% ratio and keep Natural Talent and Nurtured Skill at 50% each. Then let the PC/Player adjust this.

 

[Kingreaper]

I voted 75% class, but I want to be able to move that up and down by making choices. Picking up racial abilities, background abilities, or class abilities should be able to move it between 90% and about 40-50% (and if you go for a racial class, then race gets more important without class getting less so :-D)

 

[Starfox]

My own preferred split is 50%/25%/25% betwee Class, Race, and Background.

I would like the Background aspect turned up in importance, similar to how Kits worked in 2E. I want these to have real importance, a bit like how paragon paths worked in 4E, but independently of class - if I want to be a woodsman, I can be a fighter/woodsman (ranger), rogue/woodsman (scout), cleric/woodsman (druid) or arcanist/woodsman. And my choice of Woodsman is important, with concrete game effects.

Likewise for race, I could be an elf, dwarf, or halfling and combine that with any background and class. So I could be a halfling rogue woodsman or a elf urban wizard.

In fact, many classes could be backgrounds, like the Bard, Ranger, and part of the Rogue (the urban skills). I see it as a disadvantage that each class comes packed with a preferred area. If class is combat role, background can be environmental/social role.

Of course, I'd also like the system to be flexible enough to allow me to decide how much of my character resources to spend in each area - so I could get more or less background abilities or racial abilities. But this is quite complex for Next, and if they made such a system it should be in an add-on supplement.

 

[Incenjucar]

I prefer for the player to have a choice about how much their character is defined by what. Sticking to just the three options of class, race, and background/theme, I'd like for players to be able to distribute their options equally between the three, or to lean more heavily on their class to the point where theme and/or race are barely there. Class should be the most available option, because it's what you're doing NOW.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

You mean ideally, or after the system gets mangled and watered down by committee?

Ideally, I'd like for class, race, and theme (background) to be roughly equal, mechanically and in flavor. However, they would achieve this by having separate responsibilities, mechanically distinct.

For a crude example, divide them up amongst the three pillars. Class primarily determines combat options, race primarily determines interaction options, and theme primarily determines exploration options. You have some flexibility to pick from a broad range, but generally speaking an elven herbalist ranger is going to fight about like a human noble ranger, but play very differently elsewhere.

Then you take abilities that sit somewhat in the middle of the pillars and divide them up between the appropriate class, race, or theme pieces. For example, being a ranger tacks on access to a few key exploration options necessary to be a minimal ranger (such as sneaking through the woods), and elves, haflings, etc. may have some minor racial options that help, but the bulk of the skills come from the theme. These may reinforce the ranger or they may broaden the character concept.

Realistically, though, if that kind of division is attempted, all we will probably get is no clear seperation, as feats, powers, skills, etc. get piled up in a mix. Inevitably, there will be some stuff made up to "fill out the grid." Then in pursuit of giving such options, things assigned to a particular race really belongs to a set of theme. Or a class will get something archetypical for that class in old versions that really should have been moved out to race or theme in this set up.

Given that reality, I prefer that race and background have minimal mechanical effects. I'd like to be proved wrong, though.

 

[Sunseeker]

Class: 70%. In the wider world of your adventures, your class is what will define you, it's the codes you live by, the actions you take, the types of interactions you can have.
Race: 20%. You are a man, a dwarf, an elf, these things define you too, but will only be your primary defining characteristic in societies that are heavily xenophobic. An elf who doesn't act like the other elves will be shunned, and elf who acts like a human in a human town will be welcomed. It's also something that is up to the player to decide. How MUCH of a stone-hugger should your dwarf be? Maybe your dwarf wanders the surface because they aren't particularly fond of ale, brawling, and so they are now a wandering minstrel.
Background/theme: 10%. Your background/theme should give you, the player and the DM a general guideline of how your character has lived and how that motivates them. But how it actually causes them to act is a role-play, not a roll-play element(though it may affect a minor few rolls). It is the decision of the player to determine if they are benevolent nobility, greedy nobility, elitist nobility, or exiled nobility.