D&D General [+] More Robust 'Fantasy Race' Mechanics for D&D-alikes / Redeeming 'Race as Class' for Modern D&D [+]

[DammitVictor]

Pursuant to this thread, I thought I'd like to have a (less contentious) thread to discuss both design goals and better solutions for making nonhuman peoples more satisfying in D&D like fantasy games.

This is a [+] thread; this is for constructive ways to make nonhuman PCs more distinct from humans and each other in play.

---

In the other thread, I noted a progressive trend of the D&D rules-- starting in the first AD&D PHB-- diminishing the importance of character 'race' in the game mechanics with each subsequent edition and players (and 3PPs) trying to make that choice more important in supplemental and house rules.

• OD&D: Elves, dwarves, and hobbits are playable as PCs; the rules are unwieldy, not at all like the "race and class" of AD&D and WotC D&D or the "race as class" of Classic D&D.
• AD&D: Race and class are separated into two distinct choices; races grant all of their abilities up-front and their primary function is limiting what classes nonhuman PCs can take and how far they can progress.
  • Classic D&D simplifies this by making Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling into separate classes with the level limits built in.
• AD&D 2E: The number of classes in the PHB is reduced, and race/class limits are homogenized; 99% of races may progress in Cleric, Fighter, and/or Thief up to 9th level, and 90% of races may only progress in those classes.
• 3.0/3.5: All level limits are removed and all class restrictions are removed from the vast majority of races. Races still have 'favored class' which encourages multiclassing in... well, favored classes.
  • Worth noting that 3.5 supplements did a bunch of work here, adding racial feats and PrCs and later racial paragon classes.
  • 4E bucked the trend, giving nonhuman PCs racial abilities that remained relevant from 1st level to 30th and lots of racial exclusive options.
  • PF1 started out like 3.5 core, but then added more racial feats/traits, racial class archetypes, and alternate racial traits.
• 5.14 was more or less just like core 3.0, except for the default/mandatory inclusion of subraces; racial feats were brought back in supplements. Previously race-exclusive class archetypes like the Bladesinger are made universal.
• 5.24 officially removed all race-based ability score adjustments, which was an overall improvement for the game-- halfling fighters and barbarians were iconic character types in older editions-- but one of the last vestigial differences between different playable 'fantasy races'.

Also worth noting that during the development cycle of 3.5 and fully realized within 4e and 5e was the notion that player characters should get some kind of new or improved feature every time they gain a character level. These features were mostly class features, and because of multiclassing (and class level not always lining up with character level) every class granted new features every level, leaving very little room for non-class-based feature progression.

---

So... to outline the qualities that I want 'fantasy races' to have in a D&D-like fantasy RPG:

• Choosing a 'race' should be a character-defining decision, on par with class or at least a really juicy (5e) Feat
• Racial abilities should both scale/improve with level and include more decision points after 1st level.
• Every nonhuman race already can do something humans can't do, or can do something better than any human can do; each nonhuman race should be incapable or severely restricted in something that humans take for granted.

The last bit doesn't have to be 1:1 or affect every nonhuman PC; the goal isn't 'game balance', but rather establishing that nonhuman characters are different. Their options aren't necessarily better or worse than human options, but every race's options are different from humans and each other.

I also want to make sure that each nonhuman 'fantasy race' is capable of more-or-less functioning in a magic-driven D&D fantasy world. Communities of every race should either be self-sufficient or interdependently sufficient with their canonical allies, theoretically capable of sustaining a single-race D&D campaign, etc. etc. etc.

 

[DammitVictor]

The shortcomings of Classic's "race as class" system (imitated in at least one non-D&D example, Palladium Fantasy RPG) are well-known and... while I might argue they're overblown in context of the Classic D&D rules, they're also not a great fit for modern D&D like games... at least not as written.

I'm also just really not sure about them at all in the context of the standard 3.X and 5e multiclassing rules, which is a whole other can of worms.

---

I hate being coy about this, but there's an OSR game I think handles this well. It's a B/X based game that uses "racial classes"-- instead of Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling being classes, each of those ancestries has 3-4 classes that belong to that ancestry exclusively.

In a modern D&D context, each of those classes have  subclasses to choose from; they could keep subraces as a second axis of subclass options.

Likewise, if the game had some kind of multiclassing rules, each ancestry should have a list of standard (human) classes available for them to multiclass with. Not just Cleric, Fighter, and Rogue, and not always including Cleric, Fighter, and Rogue. (Though those three, alongside Warlock, should be the most commonly available choices across the widest number of ancestries.)

---

I'm not familiar enough with 5e's racial feats, but... that seems like a good idea, especially considering how substantial Feats are in 5e and how...  unfiddly they are in terms of picking and using them.

Also seems like a system like this would be neatly compatible with A5E's Gifts, since most 1st level and 10th level Gifts seem roughly equivalent to a "good" 5e Feat.

---

In terms of roleplaying guidelines, I don't think this needs strict mechanics. Just include with each ancestry a list of 3-4 things that are true for almost every member of the ancestry (as in, there's "something wrong" if they're not) and a list of 10-12 stereotypes for their ancestry that they pick (unenforced) at least 2-3 of them to be true for them.

The goal isn't to enforce One True Way for players to play their nonhuman characters-- but rather to give the stereotypes enough teeth that playing against them actually feels like a meaningful choice in the context of the game world.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The shortcomings of Classic's "race as class" system (imitated in at least one non-D&D example, Palladium Fantasy RPG) are well-known and... while I might argue they're overblown in context of the Classic D&D rules, they're also not a great fit for modern D&D like games... at least not as written.

I'm also just really not sure about them at all in the context of the standard 3.X and 5e multiclassing rules, which is a whole other can of worms.

---

I hate being coy about this, but there's an OSR game I think handles this well. It's a B/X based game that uses "racial classes"-- instead of Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling being classes, each of those ancestries has 3-4 classes that belong to that ancestry exclusively.

In a modern D&D context, each of those classes have  subclasses to choose from; they could keep subraces as a second axis of subclass options.

Likewise, if the game had some kind of multiclassing rules, each ancestry should have a list of standard (human) classes available for them to multiclass with. Not just Cleric, Fighter, and Rogue, and not always including Cleric, Fighter, and Rogue. (Though those three, alongside Warlock, should be the most commonly available choices across the widest number of ancestries.)

---

I'm not familiar enough with 5e's racial feats, but... that seems like a good idea, especially considering how substantial Feats are in 5e and how...  unfiddly they are in terms of picking and using them.

Also seems like a system like this would be neatly compatible with A5E's Gifts, since most 1st level and 10th level Gifts seem roughly equivalent to a "good" 5e Feat.

---

In terms of roleplaying guidelines, I don't think this needs strict mechanics. Just include with each ancestry a list of 3-4 things that are true for almost every member of the ancestry (as in, there's "something wrong" if they're not) and a list of 10-12 stereotypes for their ancestry that they pick (unenforced) at least 2-3 of them to be true for them.

The goal isn't to enforce One True Way for players to play their nonhuman characters-- but rather to give the stereotypes enough teeth that playing against them actually feels like a meaningful choice in the context of the game world.

Big fan of the OSR game you reference here. Also very intrigued by merging these concepts with A5e (my other favorite D&D-like) and it's origin system. Lots of cool ideas here!

 

[DammitVictor]

Feels like I'm drifting pretty far afield if I'm talking about multiclassing systems outside of 3.X or 5.X... or at least good 3PP hacks for them.

Mentioned recently that my preferred 3PP multiclassing rules (so far) are Tipsy Tabby's Overhauling Multiclassing (for PF1) combined with liberal use of hybrid classes and prestige archetypes. I'm not sure if there's anything equivalent for 5e multiclassing.

Of course, my real preference is Sword World, where the XP cost of class levels is consistent-- regardless of the character level they're obtained at-- and a 10 Fighter/9 Wizard is a 10th level character with the spent XP of almost twice a theoretical 10th level single-class character's (single class characters are RARE in Sword World) as opposed to a severely handicapped 19th level character.

---

Combine them? Each nonhuman ancestry has (default) 3-5 racial classes similar to PF1's racial archetypes for their most favored classes-- one of which they have to pick for their first X (free) class levels, and a list of human classes they may otherwise select freely. Their racial classes include class/subclass abilities normally, they get something like Gifts automatically (by character level), and they may use their regular Feat slots on racial feats or standard Feats as they prefer.

By default, they have to be this much of their ancestry... which is more than most D&D systems allow, and then they can be as much or as little as they prefer.

 

[DammitVictor]

Like according to the d20PFSRD, the Dwarf has the Foehammer (Fighter), Forgemaster (Cleric), Stonelord (Paladin) and Exarch (Inquisitor). I'd probably add one for Barbarian and one for Slayer. Their list of "human classes" would include those and variants of those, plus probably Alchemist, Artificer, Magus, Bard... and so on. It doesn't reslly matter what is or isn't on the list, and it'd be better if it was different in every setting.

They'd get Warlock because almost everyone gets Warlock, and Bloodrager/Sorcerer because those are practically racial classes in the first place.

---

Elves? I'd straight up just write an Elf class: the equivalent of 3/4 BAB or "martial", 3.PF Bard or 5e Ranger spellcasting, REF/WILL or DEX/CHA saves. The Elf class would have a very narrow spell list, with both "subclass" choices adding spells to it.

Elves would be one of the very few races I didn't give some kind of Cleric/Paladin/Inquisitor or Warlock option, unless I was using like hardcore Realms drow in the setting. Elves have no problem with different kinds of magic, but they're too fey to be bound by divine oaths or eldritch pacts. (Or not. Choose different classes? Choose different excuses.)

And so on. Doesn't take up a whole lot of work or page space.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I’d probably do something along the lines of giving each race substitute or variant features & weaknesses for the base class. As a simple example, perhaps the base weapons & armor lists for each class varies for each race.

That way, you maintain the modern flexibility of being able to play every class and race combinations, but there will be certain distinctions hard baked into the ways each race works in each class.

 

[Lanefan]

Part of the problem is the decreased acceptance of the idea that some species are simply flat-out better at, or better suited for, some classes than they are for others.

In 1e, Hobbits make great Thieves or Assassins but lousy melee Fighters. Dwarves make great melee Fighters but can't do arcane casting at all. And so forth.

Yes this leads to stereotypes. That's the point: it's a feature, not a bug.

 

[fuindordm]

I liked the 3e paragon classes and iterations around this idea, permitting a player to spend a level on improving their racial abilities. This was a good innovation but it didn't mesh well with 3e-style multiclassing.
Something similar could work in 5e, if taking the racial level doesn't cripple your advancement in main class abilities.
For example:
Halfling maverick - improved Luck dice, sneak attack as rogue level + maverick level
Elf dwoemerist - improved innate spellcasting, add dwoemerist level to another class to determine spell slots
Gnome polymath - improved artifice options, on long rest can add polymath level to another class to improve any level-based feature (e.g. spell slots)

 

[DammitVictor]

Part of the problem is the decreased acceptance of the idea that some species are simply flat-out better at, or better suited for, some classes than they are for others.

Well, I generally agree-- very broadly-- that any character concept that is supposed to be supported by the rules should be viable under the rules. "Equally viable" isn't really possible or desirable, because the "meta" at every table is different, but if the game tells you that a character is playable, it should be playable. I just don't think every possible combination of character class and ancestry should be playable, as an expression of narrative and mechanical diversity.

I'm not going to be running my ideas for anyone reading this, at their tables, so they can feel free to take what they want and leave the rest. People like 5e well enough that they'd rather try to get something else from it than play anything else, so I'm happy to suggest ways they can get different experiences out of what's more or less the same ruleset. I'm useful that way.

For my actual work, the weird niche D&D-like I'm trying to write and publish? If you'll pardon the reversed order of operations, I'm not writing it for the people who aren't going to like it; I'm writing it for the people who will. I want to include this, as a valuable feature in D&D history that's been unfairly relegated to the ash heap of history, and I want to include the best possible version of it. If I can't figure out a couple of decent ways for home umpires to work around my preferences... if enough people care about the game to care about the solution, someone cleverer than I am will fix it for me.

There's enough people out there writing and playing B/X clones that I'm not too worried about losing the majority of the WotC D&D audience; the 5e audience is big enough that a small minority of it is plenty for me, and my primary audience is people looking for something else anyway.

In 1e, Hobbits make great Thieves or Assassins but lousy melee Fighters. Dwarves make great melee Fighters but can't do arcane casting at all. And so forth.

Original Halfling class in B/X was more Fighter than Thief. -1 STR and the inability to use heavy weapons wasn't a total dealbreaker in the 80s and 90s. D&D in the 90s and 00s presented halfling barbarians and halfling monks as iconic archetypes across multiple settings, from Dark Sun to Mystara to Eberron.

It's not a narrative problem, it's a math problem.

 

[DammitVictor]

I liked the 3e paragon classes and iterations around this idea, permitting a player to spend a level on improving their racial abilities. This was a good innovation but it didn't mesh well with 3e-style multiclassing. Something similar could work in 5e, if taking the racial level doesn't cripple your advancement in main class abilities.

Well, I don't want to relitigate my gripes with 3e and 5e multiclassing. Simply applying paragon class features as ancestry bonuses-- with class level stacking maxing out at character level-- would be great. Or, taking another page from Unearthed Arcana 3.5, working ancestry paragon features into class-based progression via the Bloodlines rules. "Your Dwarf is a Paragon? How Paragon?"

PF1 has Variant Multiclassing.

I've got a love/hate relationship with 4e because I love how elegantly it's designed for what it's supposed to do, but as an OGL enthusiast and an avid homebrewer from before and after the OGL era, I hate the fact that it's designed to be so difficult to modify to do anything else. It does natively a lot of the things that I want to be able to do in other D&D rulesets, but I have no idea how to implement other ideas into it and even less idea how to implement its innovations in those other rulesets.