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

[fuindordm]

I think we have two camps arguing for two aspects of the game that are not actually in conflict.

As a fantasy game system capable of supporting a wide variety of setting and homebrew, D&D needs to provide a wide variety of options and very few restrictions. (Personally, I was upset when they removed the alignment restriction from the paladin class, but eventually I came around.)

To define the setting, the GM and players can restrict character choices, monsters, magic systems and many other things. You all want to play a Conan-style game? Perfectly OK to say that there are only two spellcasting classes, the Warlock and the Cleric, and that the other classes just don't get spells. You all want to play a D&D-adjacent campaign like Dragonlance? Perfectly OK to say there are no divine casters at all, that half-elves are almost unheard of, and that wizards must join a global guild before reaching 5th level. The people making characters accept the social contract to play concepts that support the restrictions and themes of the setting. If one player insists on making a kender cleric, with some half-assed explanation of how they can have spells without an actual god, then they are simply choosing not to collaborate with the other players (i.e. being a jerk).

The problem is that D&D evolved very slowly from a fantasy game that took place in a specific implied setting (Greyhawk) to a more generic fantasy game that could support many settings. 2E had great campaign worlds but had to twist the system into knots to support settings like Dark Sun and Al Qadim. 3E took big steps towards making the game system more flexible but still had a lot of legacy restrictions. 5E does a better job than 3E even but it is still not fantasy GURPS (nor do I want it to be). It's main problem as a game system is not the mechanics, it is that the baseline power level is too high and the system doesn't include any good "dials" to turn it up or down.

Anyway, some of you are talking game system and some are talking setting. You can have both. But the setting is an intentional choice made between GM and players, not to be confused with the system.

 

[Mannahnin]

Anyway, some of you are talking game system and some are talking setting. You can have both. But the setting is an intentional choice made between GM and players, not to be confused with the system.

90% agreed, but you can also build a particular setting into a system. Like Dolmenwood, for example.

 

[fuindordm]

90% agreed, but you can also build a particular setting into a system. Like Dolmenwood, for example.

Right you are, and the very best RPGs use the system to express the setting and its themes. But those games are not generic and usually don't pretend to be.

 

[Lanefan]

In AD&D, class group was both role and power source: defender/striker = fighter, controller = mage, healer = priest. Utility magic, when the AD&D rules cared, followed a similar pattern.

It's a numbers game. 1 or 2 dead PCs is a TPK;

Not sure where you're getting that from, unless your average party size is only 2 or 3 characters.

BX and 1e etc. solved this by assuming a much larger adventuring group than today, often half a dozen or more adventurers plus hirelings, porters, and henches; as shown by the published adventures of the day where it says on the cover "For 6-8 characters of 4th-7th level" or similar.

With parties like that, losing a character or two is no big deal in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Lanefan]

This for me just makes no sense.

1. Why would the player who is NOT picking characters (so not affected by the limitation), limiting character choices? Its like if players would tell a GM they are not allowed to have female NPCs. Or not allowed to run ranged enemies. Making others life harder just for the sake of it?
2. Why playing a game where something is possible, when you then want to restrict it? This just makes things more complicated. When someone wants to play a game, and asks around to play that game, I am assuming we are playing that game, and if not they need to explain their houserules beforehand which makes communication more complicated.

Do you allow Evil PCs in your game? Or CN hell-raiser PCs?

If you do, good on ya!

If you don't, however, then you're making exactly the same type of arbitrary restriction that you're complaining about when applied to a different aspect of character-making.

I see no reason why the desire of a single player to play king overide other players personal desires of character choices.
The players play the characters, so they should decide, else the players should also decide what NPCs you are not allowed to play and what enemies. When your boss gives you money, they also cant decide what car you buy. Also you are 1 person, players are normally 4 people. Most people decide things democratically, in modern society and not have 1 bully force others to do their will.

A DM imposing character restrictions is now defined as a bully?

Yeah, that's a bit much.

 

[Lanefan]

Like I said before, as someone that considers himself a modern player, I'd be more accepting if Humans aren't also designed to be the default so that they are also class restricted in some way;

Ya know, you might be on to something here.

What if Humans, being the generic baseline, were restricted to also only being the generic versions of classes?

Easier to define in 1e terms than 5e's mish-mash, but in a hypothetical 1e where any species could be any class a Human in this set-up could only be a Fighter, MU, Cleric, or Thief; if you wanted to be anything else (e.g. Ranger, Illusionist, Assassin, etc.) you had to be non-Human.

Maybe in 5e or similar, Humans might be banned from multiclassing or changing class?

 

[GobHag]

An example of a non-baseline design for Humans is how In 'His Majesty The Worm', Humans are treated as super nationalistic about their clan/House that they gain advantage when their motto or sigil is dramatically appropriate.

 

[Mannahnin]

Right you are, and the very best RPGs use the system to express the setting and its themes. But those games are not generic and usually don't pretend to be.

True enough.

Though D&D has never or rarely claimed to be a generic or universal RPG. It has attempted to cover a wide variety of settings, but a certain amount of setting expectation has often been baked into it, and explicitly so, from the start. Vance-style magic, for example. Clerics not being able to wield pointed or edged weapons. Demi-humans having class limitations and level limits (which Gary talked about in the first DMG, and Zeb did in the 2E one as being to ensure the primacy of humans in most settings), the existence of Aragorn-clone Rangers who get damage bonuses against certain monsters...

WotC-era D&D removed some of those elements (like race limitations on class and level), and made the game more generic in terms of what kinds of fantasy settings it can accomodate, but not all of them.

Easier to define in 1e terms than 5e's mish-mash, but in a hypothetical 1e where any species could be any class a Human in this set-up could only be a Fighter, MU, Cleric, or Thief; if you wanted to be anything else (e.g. Ranger, Illusionist, Assassin, etc.) you had to be non-Human.

Maybe in 5e or similar, Humans might be banned from multiclassing or changing class?

That's an interesting idea. Like B/X but with more classes. Humans get the Core Four (plus maybe Monk? How about Barbarian or Paladin?), demi-humans get the rest. In 5E this would be tricky, though, because 12 classes but 10 species.

Cleric: Human
Fighter: Human
Rogue: Human
Wizard: Human

Barbarian: Goliath, Orc
Bard: Halfling, Gnome
Druid: Aasimar, Elf,
Monk: Goliath, Gnome
Paladin: Aasimar, Dragonborn, Dwarf, Tiefling
Ranger: Halfling, Elf
Sorcerer: Dragonborn, Dwarf
Warlock: Tiefling, Orc

I think most folks want more options than this, but it's a fun notion to play around with.

Overall I think it's going a bit backwards, in that I think better design for most folks is to try to make the species balanced against each other and likewise with the classes. And that's complicated somewhat by siloing the options like this.

But it's an interesting way to examine how a setting could be embodied more in the options. In the above example schema, for example, maybe Paladins are all knights of particular kingdoms or deities associated with those species.

 

[Stormonu]

If classes are going to grant abilities just about every level, then I think race should do something similar as well. I'd advocate for 1st/3rd/5th/7th/9th (or 1st/5th/9th) abilities myself. And preferably not "+1 to X stat".

1E and 2E didn't really need this sort of thing as there were no decision points during leveling, and other than spellcasters very few classes gained new abilities at level up - beyond better THAC0, hp & saves.

One of the things I've done with races in my 5E Frankenstein is:

Dwarves: If you choose a class/subclass that doesn't cast spells, you get Magic Resistance
Halflings: If you choose to take a -1 to Strength, you get a free Dex-based skill proficiency and PB advantage on Dex skill checks per day.
Elves: A feat that allows you to use Trance to change one skill Proficiency during a long rest.

And so on.

 

[TwoSix]

That's an interesting idea. Like B/X but with more classes. Humans get the Core Four (plus maybe Monk? How about Barbarian or Paladin?), demi-humans get the rest. In 5E this would be tricky, though, because 12 classes but 10 species.

Cleric: Human
Fighter: Human
Rogue: Human
Wizard: Human

Barbarian: Goliath, Orc
Bard: Halfling, Gnome
Druid: Aasimar, Elf,
Monk: Goliath, Gnome
Paladin: Aasimar, Dragonborn, Dwarf, Tiefling
Ranger: Halfling, Elf
Sorcerer: Dragonborn, Dwarf
Warlock: Tiefling, Orc

I think most folks want more options than this, but it's a fun notion to play around with.

Overall I think it's going a bit backwards, in that I think better design for most folks is to try to make the species balanced against each other and likewise with the classes. And that's complicated somewhat by siloing the options like this.

But it's an interesting way to examine how a setting could be embodied more in the options. In the above example schema, for example, maybe Paladins are all knights of particular kingdoms or deities associated with those species.

Just to toy with this, if our goal is to use 5e classes but not have race as a separate choice silo, we could conceivably use ancestry-themed subclasses. Assuming classes are modified to allow for subclass as a choice at 1st level.