Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 5791666" data-attributes="member: 92511">Race as class, no thank you. We got out of that in 1e and I see no reason it should go back. Separating race and class made sense and opened up tons of options that let you get away from &quot;Dwarf=Gimli.&quot; &lt;Player of Dwarf&gt; &quot;Yeah, but my dwarf uses a crossbow along with his hand axe!&quot; &lt;Other players&gt; &quot;Ooo. Aaaah.&quot;It is, I think inherently limiting to the number of types of characters that can be created.Obviously, the number of classes that are going to be included in the first publication of 5e is, I'm sure, a huge [set of] decision[s.]Just the base 4?&nbsp; One sub-class for each? 3 sub-classes for each? Make EVERY thing its own &quot;base class&quot; so you have...what 12?...15?...25? You can't produce a book with that all in one set.Your race and class are the crux of a character concept. To say, &quot;I'm a Dwarf&quot; (to cover both) is, yes, &quot;simpler&quot; but limiting the PC to however the archetype is presented and/or whatever special abilities that race has. Offering &quot;racial levels&quot; or addition racial feats you can get as you increase in power to customize outside of the &quot;Dwarf&quot; or &quot;Elf&quot; archetype sounds like a nice idea...but it also sounds like a whole 'nother circle of mechanics and specifics to keep track of...an unnecessary complexity, to my view. Make them optional rules, perhaps. Or, just &quot;go back&quot; and have &quot;Dwarf get these few [say 3?] extras [abilities], Elf gets these 3, etc...&quot;And if 5e, as many are suggesting here, is going to be all about the &quot;modularity&quot; then there is only so much/many &quot;options/modules&quot; one can offer before you start getting into ridiculous page count.Which speaks to something to keep in mind in general, 5e is a shiny glowy beacon of what might be, at this point. But, as with every previous edition, there is no possible way it will be &quot;all things to all players&quot;...at least, not in the initial beginner starting set/books (and yes, I would like to see a set/box, myself).If it were up to me (and, frankly, isn't that what we're all doing/thinking in this forum? hahaha) I'd go with the basic 4 races to start (human, elf, dwarf, halfling -hairfooted variety please! Take the shoes back OFF the halflings!)While I would like to see more than the 4 base classes to start with, but we'll assume those (Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Magic-user) for the purposes of this dream-suggestion:1) Allow Multi-classing for all races (including humans).2) Only, ever, 2 classes maybe be multi-classed. That are chosen/started at level 1 (no more &quot;Figher 5/Thief 3/Cleric 1/Kitchen-sink-one-man-adventuring-machine 9&quot;)! And ONLY &quot;base classes&quot; may be combined...No sub-classes, 'Paladin/MU&quot;, &quot;Druid/Barbarian&quot; or whatever, no.If you don't have the stats (or the race doesn't allow) to be the &quot;Paladin&quot; you originally wanted, play a Fighter/Cleric. Can't make the cut for a &quot;Ranger&quot;, &quot;Fighter/Thief&quot; gets you pretty close.3) Non-human Races do not have level limits.4) Racial class restrictions are optional rules with suggested recommendations that harken back to the &quot;classic&quot; archetypes (i.e. if you don't want Dwarves to be MUs or Rangers, then you can do that. If you don't want Elf Paladins or Halfling Clerics, you can do that. ) But for standard rules, you could be a Dwarf Cleric or MU or Fighter/Cleric or Thief/MU or whatever combo of those 4...covers a bunch of different kinds of adventuring types and styles without tons of extra racial abilities or levels or feats to keep track of.You have your set of racial abilities (preferably without ability bonuses) and what you really need to keep track of is what your Classes can do.&nbsp;&nbsp; But I suppose I'm getting a bit off topic, here. Point is, &quot;Dwarf as class?&quot; No thanks.--SD</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 5791666, member: 92511"] Race as class, no thank you. We got out of that in 1e and I see no reason it should go back. Separating race and class made sense and opened up tons of options that let you get away from "Dwarf=Gimli." <Player of Dwarf> "Yeah, but my dwarf uses a crossbow along with his hand axe!" <Other players> "Ooo. Aaaah." It is, I think inherently limiting to the number of types of characters that can be created. Obviously, the number of classes that are going to be included in the first publication of 5e is, I'm sure, a [I]huge[/I] [set of] decision[s.] Just the base 4? One sub-class for each? 3 sub-classes for each? Make EVERY thing its own "base class" so you have...what 12?...15?...25? You can't produce a book with that all in one set. Your race and class are the crux of a character concept. To say, "I'm a Dwarf" (to cover both) is, yes, "simpler" but limiting the PC to however the archetype is presented and/or whatever special abilities that race has. Offering "racial levels" or addition racial feats you can get as you increase in power to customize outside of the "Dwarf" or "Elf" archetype sounds like a nice idea...but it also sounds like a whole 'nother circle of mechanics and specifics to keep track of...an unnecessary complexity, to my view. Make them optional rules, perhaps. Or, just "go back" and have "Dwarf get these few [say 3?] extras [abilities], Elf gets these 3, etc..." And if 5e, as many are suggesting here, is going to be all about the "modularity" then there is only so much/many "options/modules" one can offer before you start getting into ridiculous page count. Which speaks to something to keep in mind in general, 5e is a shiny glowy beacon of what [I]might [/I]be, at this point. But, as with every previous edition, there is no possible way it will be "all things to all players"...at least, not in the initial beginner starting set/books (and yes, I would like to see a set/box, myself). If it were up to me (and, frankly, isn't that what we're all doing/thinking in this forum? hahaha) I'd go with the basic 4 races to start (human, elf, dwarf, halfling -hairfooted variety please! Take the shoes back OFF the halflings!) While I would like to see more than the 4 base classes to start with, but we'll assume those (Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Magic-user) for the purposes of this dream-suggestion: 1) Allow Multi-classing for all races (including humans). 2) Only, [I]ever[/I], 2 classes maybe be multi-classed. That are chosen/started at level 1 (no more "Figher 5/Thief 3/Cleric 1/Kitchen-sink-one-man-adventuring-machine 9")! And ONLY "base classes" may be combined...No sub-classes, 'Paladin/MU", "Druid/Barbarian" or whatever, no. If you don't have the stats (or the race doesn't allow) to be the "Paladin" you originally wanted, play a Fighter/Cleric. Can't make the cut for a "Ranger", "Fighter/Thief" gets you pretty close. 3) Non-human Races do not have level limits. 4) Racial class restrictions are optional rules with suggested recommendations that harken back to the "classic" archetypes (i.e. if you don't want Dwarves to be MUs or Rangers, then you can do that. If you don't want Elf Paladins or Halfling Clerics, you can do that. ) But for standard rules, you could be a Dwarf Cleric or MU or Fighter/Cleric or Thief/MU or whatever combo of those 4...covers a bunch of different kinds of adventuring types and styles without tons of extra racial abilities or levels or feats to keep track of. You have your set of racial abilities (preferably without ability bonuses) and what you really need to keep track of is what your Classes can do. But I suppose I'm getting a bit off topic, here. Point is, "Dwarf as class?" No thanks. --SD [/QUOTE]

Verification