I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[Maxperson]

Diversity is great!

But I'd also point out ... that most players don't care. The players that care usually become DMs to do the world-building, and then those DMs become really disappointed when they make all this detailed world-building, and then realize that .... guess what, the players don't care.

And the fact that so many people today now look back at B/X (Moldvay/Cook) specifically as an example of how rules were done correctly back then probably speaks to something.

Personally, I remember that at the time, I thought "Race as class? That's for babies!" Now I think ... "Eh, I can appreciate that."

Hot take. The players DO care. They just don't know that they care.

In my experience those extra details from world-building make the game much more enjoyable for the players, even if the players aren't overtly marveling at all the world-building that I did(in the distant past when I had time) or the purchased setting has. That depth adds to the game.

I've run games with and without the extra world building and the players have fun with both, but more fun with the depth of world-building present.

 

[Mr. Lahey]

I'll go with the Lord of the Rings books where it was said over your reference that wasn't written by Tolkien, thank you. Hobbits were more resistant to the effects of the rings. Gollum had the ring for 500 years. Bilbo for a long time as well. The men were corrupted almost immediately. Dwarves were also resistant also did not become wraiths.

You don’t consider Smeagol to have been corrupted immediately?

Anyway, you can interpret what you have read however you see fit - according to the totality of Tolkien’s world, they are basically the same, aside from being smaller and larger.

 

[TwoSix]

Sure, it is possible. Say you have four base classes: Fighter, Magic-User, Cleric and Rogue. If you were committed to making non-human races distinct, you could create non-human equivalences for each, say, Dwarf Shield-bearer, Dwarf Artificer, Dwarf Priest and Dwarf Crossbowman.

However, this approach raises its own issues:
1. Even with a small number of non-human races, you quickly get an unwieldy number of classes.
2. There is a challenge to differentiate classes that cover the same “niche”.
3. There is a risk of exacerbating balance issues, as happened when the 2e Complete Book of Elves came out.

This is a little tangential from D&D, but you could have a setup where every PC picks two options at character creation from the list of classes, like a Fighter/Ranger or a Wizard/Cleric. Then make the non-human options their own class, so a player could make a Elf/Cleric or a Dwarf/Wizard.

Shadow of the Weird Wizard does something kina similar. In the base game, there are only 4 "starter" classes. Ancestry is a small add-on that gives a minor bonus, fairly similar to Daggerheart.

But, in the first book after the core, there are 30 races detailed, each of which also has their own "starter" class you can take instead of one of the 4 basic classes. So you can make a Elf Warrior, or you can just make a Elf.

 

[Cadence]

This is a little tangential from D&D, but you could have a setup where every PC picks two options at character creation from the list of classes, like a Fighter/Ranger or a Wizard/Cleric. Then make the non-human options their own class, so a player could make a Elf/Cleric or a Dwarf/Wizard.

Shadow of the Weird Wizard does something kina similar. In the base game, there are only 4 "starter" classes. Ancestry is a small add-on that gives a minor bonus, fairly similar to Daggerheart.

But, in the first book after the core, there are 30 races detailed, each of which also has their own "starter" class you can take instead of one of the 4 basic classes. So you can make a Elf Warrior, or you can just make a Elf.

This makes me think a bit of the 3.5 rules for how some monsters as characters worked: Monsters As Races :: d20srd.org

For the ones where the monster species had default things clearly well above those of a human/dwarf/elf, those counted as levels.

(Would Tolkien's elves have enough powers to justify extra ECLs? The Numenoreans? <- not intended to start a tangent, but was in my head as something to ponder).

 

[Corinnguard]

Are heritage and heritage gifts racial abilities? Because a racial adaption like that is a racial ability.

Heritage in Level Up covers traits such as size, speed, age, senses and a signature trait such as Elven trance or a Dragonborn's breath weapon. A character is born with these traits. As for a Heritage Gift , it's essentially is a feat you were born with. Are they racial? Probably not since race is more of a social construct than a biological one and heritage pretty much covers a character's biological aspects.

 

[TwoSix]

This makes me think a bit of the 3.5 rules for how some monsters as characters worked: Monsters As Races :: d20srd.org

For the ones where the monster species had default things clearly well above those of a human/dwarf/elf, those counted as levels.

(Would Tolkien's elves have enough powers to justify extra ECLs? The Numenoreans? <- not intended to start a tangent, but was in my head as something to ponder).

Yea, it's not a dissimilar approach. It works better in ShadowotWW because classes don't have stacking increases in power (each level just gives some more hit points, and a new ability), and characters gain new classes at levels 3 and 7. So it's equally viable to play a Changeling Rogue/Warlock or a Changeling Ancestry Class/Warlock.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Are heritage and heritage gifts racial abilities? Because a racial adaption like that is a racial ability.

Yes, they are. Heritages traits are shared by all members of a heritage. Heritage gifts are chosen by the player at character creation from a list of at least two (usually more) options. Both are intrinsic, "racial" abilities.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'll go with the Lord of the Rings books where it was said over your reference that wasn't written by Tolkien, thank you. Hobbits were more resistant to the effects of the rings. Gollum had the ring for 500 years. Bilbo for a long time as well. The men were corrupted almost immediately. Dwarves were also resistant also did not become wraiths.

To be fair, dwarves were explicitly designed by the Valar Aule to be resistant to the works of the Enemy. That's why Sauron couldn't use the Seven to put them under his thrall (not to say that the dwarf-rings had no effect on them).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, it is possible. Say you have four base classes: Fighter, Magic-User, Cleric and Rogue. If you were committed to making non-human races distinct, you could create non-human equivalences for each, say, Dwarf Shield-bearer, Dwarf Artificer, Dwarf Priest and Dwarf Crossbowman.

However, this approach raises its own issues:
1. Even with a small number of non-human races, you quickly get an unwieldy number of classes.
2. There is a challenge to differentiate classes that cover the same “niche”.
3. There is a risk of exacerbating balance issues, as happened when the 2e Complete Book of Elves came out.

1. Unwieldy is subjective. It might be too many classes for you.

2. Challenge of differentiation can be overcome with good design work and creativity.

3. Balance concerns can also be overcome with good design work, for example a point-based class creation system for which many examples are provided for context.

 

[jmartkdr2]

A species as class is of course super limiting, but I rather feel some sort of additional subclass-like structure might make sense at least for some species. Perhaps your background could work like a subclass, and then for more powerful species that "splat slot" would be consumed by the species instead. Then you could better represent species that have more powerful capabilities, whereas more "mundane" species would use that part of the "power budget" for things related to their background instead.

One issue with balancing species is that they need to be balanced with humans, whereas in fiction a lot of non-human species simply are just more capable than humans. This would be one way to address that.

Species-based subclasses could work if you first universalize the “budget” for subclasses, which they tried but abandoned for 5.5.