Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 5791574" data-attributes="member: 710">I liked Arcana's Evolved concept of &quot;racial class levels&quot;. You didn't have to take them, but you could, and it made you more in line with the &quot;traditional&quot; example of the race. Only problem may be that AE deliberately had - at least for D&amp;D - non-traditional races. Dog-People, Lion-People, Giants, Fey, so the tradition is more weakly defined.3E/AE style multiclassing has certain drawbacks, but a system that is more like 3.x than 4E in multiclassing could cover this.So &quot;Dwarf&quot; is a race and a class at the same time. You can choose to be basically a &quot;traditional&quot; Dwarf, that has all the &quot;tunnel fighter&quot;, &quot;axe-swinging&quot;, &quot;giant-killer&quot;, &quot;miner&quot;, &quot;crafter&quot; and &quot;beer-consuming&quot; archetypical features you have. Or you can choose to go Dwarf Wizard and just dabble a little in the archetype.One of 4E goal was to make race count for more. It didn't really achieve that - maybe better than 3E, but still not enough.I think there is a good argument for having races as classes simply predicated on the idea that classes are about archetype. And the archetype isn't really Dwarf Fighter or Elven Fighter/Mage. It's Dwarf, it's Elf.But of course, the joy in roleplaying can be both playing an archetype, and playing against archetype. So the system needs to be flexible enough to allow both.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mustrum_Ridcully, post: 5791574, member: 710"] I liked Arcana's Evolved concept of "racial class levels". You didn't have to take them, but you could, and it made you more in line with the "traditional" example of the race. Only problem may be that AE deliberately had - at least for D&D - non-traditional races. Dog-People, Lion-People, Giants, Fey, so the tradition is more weakly defined. 3E/AE style multiclassing has certain drawbacks, but a system that is more like 3.x than 4E in multiclassing could cover this. So "Dwarf" is a race and a class at the same time. You can choose to be basically a "traditional" Dwarf, that has all the "tunnel fighter", "axe-swinging", "giant-killer", "miner", "crafter" and "beer-consuming" archetypical features you have. Or you can choose to go Dwarf Wizard and just dabble a little in the archetype. One of 4E goal was to make race count for more. It didn't really achieve that - maybe better than 3E, but still not enough. I think there is a good argument for having races as classes simply predicated on the idea that classes are about archetype. And the archetype isn't really Dwarf Fighter or Elven Fighter/Mage. It's Dwarf, it's Elf. But of course, the joy in roleplaying can be both playing an archetype, and playing against archetype. So the system needs to be flexible enough to allow both. [/QUOTE]

Verification