D&D (2024) No Dwarf, Halfling, and Orc suborgins, lineages, and legacies

[Corinnguard]

Being able to make and play a character is pretty much the whole point for me

Same thing here. I like figuring out how to make them better as they advance to each level.

 

[Remathilis]

I get that preference, but for me I want setting to matter the most, so having strong distinctions between different heritages is a benefit to worldbuilding. This dovetails into my general preference for PCs not being so very special that they are essentially divorced from the people from which they ostensibly sprang.

I find the opposite. One of the first questions I asked when I got familiar with Basic was why elves, dwarves and halflings don't have priests (clerics) or criminals (thieves). Are they irreligious? Do they have different views on property and crime? The answer I got was "no, just players can't be demihumans unless their fighters (or f/m if an elf)." Moving on to AD&D was a no brainer after that since demihumans could at least be criminals and priests. And as I started later, the question of "why can't X be y" was always arbitrary and mechanical rather than lore based (the reason dwarves can't be paladins was due to humans having access to a class no other race did rather than any real lore rational. Of course, having access to a class that was nearly impossible to meet the requirements for fairly was not much of a boon).

 

[CreamCloud0]

I find the opposite. One of the first questions I asked when I got familiar with Basic was why elves, dwarves and halflings don't have priests (clerics) or criminals (thieves). Are they irreligious? Do they have different views on property and crime? The answer I got was "no, just players can't be demihumans unless their fighters (or f/m if an elf)." Moving on to AD&D was a no brainer after that since demihumans could at least be criminals and priests. And as I started later, the question of "why can't X be y" was always arbitrary and mechanical rather than lore based (the reason dwarves can't be paladins was due to humans having access to a class no other race did rather than any real lore rational. Of course, having access to a class that was nearly impossible to meet the requirements for fairly was not much of a boon).

i definitely agree that 'X species can only be Y class' is nonsense and arbitrary but personally i balk at the idea of 'all species must be equally inclined to any, every and all classes', if you want your species to be equally proficient at any skillset then pick a human.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Because when you add mechanics to prioritize races into certain classes (whether that be via racial ASI, XP bonuses and penalties, racial class and level restrictions, race-as-class, or some other mechanism), you're working to have the mechanics reify familiar tropes into the mainline play. Having dwarves be mostly fighters or fighter/clerics reinforces the narrative of them as tough, community-oriented defenders. Having halflings mostly be thieves reinforces their small size, nimbleness, and inquisitiveness.

The downside, of course, is that building up racial concept in the setting via mechanics necessarily limits the amount of player expression to define the character and their image to their own taste. The balance of "player authority to define their character" compared to "the ability of the system to define the setting" is an aesthetic consideration that needs to be decided by the table.

d&d has multiple settings and I do not see dwarves only as fighter or clerics (why did they not have paladins it seems right up their alley)

I really dislike that percentage. It's IMO quite unrealistic for one's heritage to matter that little.

it would work better if we had a flat-out larger character budget letting us cut out a false dichotomy.

I find the opposite. One of the first questions I asked when I got familiar with Basic was why elves, dwarves and halflings don't have priests (clerics) or criminals (thieves). Are they irreligious? Do they have different views on property and crime? The answer I got was "no, just players can't be demihumans unless their fighters (or f/m if an elf)." Moving on to AD&D was a no brainer after that since demihumans could at least be criminals and priests. And as I started later, the question of "why can't X be y" was always arbitrary and mechanical rather than lore based (the reason dwarves can't be paladins was due to humans having access to a class no other race did rather than any real lore rational. Of course, having access to a class that was nearly impossible to meet the requirements for fairly was not much of a boon).

wait only humans got paladins?

i definitely agree that 'X species can only be Y class' is nonsense and arbitrary but personally i balk at the idea of 'all species must be equally inclined to any, every and all classes', if you want your species to be equally proficient at any skillset then pick a human.

I think it depends on setting and culture, fewer elf paladins as masses of muscle and full plate do not really fit elves' idea of how they fight they love range and magic wood elves would have the least, drow the most with them being the enforcers of lolth or something.
and I could see of settings in dnd changing it up, like eberron making orcs all good guys mostly.

 

[TwoSix]

if your choice of species determines which feats or other options you can or can't take then i think your species is mattering a little more than 5% mechanically, even if what it's adding is not being added to your character immediately at level 1, but you also get very little of your class abilities at level 1

Well, yes, that would be the "splitting the difference" part.

 

[tetrasodium]

Intellectually I understand that, but if that’s how DnD worked I would not be in the hobby. Being able to make and play a character is pretty much the whole point for me; I don’t just want to explore a setting. (And the former absolutely does not exclude the latter).

Trouble there is that the system needs to provide the GM with the a useful target they can point at in order to avoid being trapped in

Spoiler: this sisyphean loop

with players wgo are absolutely positive that the entire breakdown is caused by the GM failing at twelve or six o'clock with three & nine o'clock having no chance of being responsible for the breakdown

 

[TwoSix]

I find the opposite. One of the first questions I asked when I got familiar with Basic was why elves, dwarves and halflings don't have priests (clerics) or criminals (thieves). Are they irreligious? Do they have different views on property and crime? The answer I got was "no, just players can't be demihumans unless their fighters (or f/m if an elf)." Moving on to AD&D was a no brainer after that since demihumans could at least be criminals and priests. And as I started later, the question of "why can't X be y" was always arbitrary and mechanical rather than lore based (the reason dwarves can't be paladins was due to humans having access to a class no other race did rather than any real lore rational. Of course, having access to a class that was nearly impossible to meet the requirements for fairly was not much of a boon).

For sure. The core problem for any system that has a lot of embedded worldbuilding is that it builds a particular world. If you want to build other worlds, or think the assumptions of the worldbuilding done by the game are faulty, you're kinda SOL without a lot of houseruling.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Well, yes, that would be the "splitting the difference" part.

5% is 5%, that doesn't leave much room to split the difference in, and adding it later doesn't increase how big 5% is.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I find the opposite. One of the first questions I asked when I got familiar with Basic was why elves, dwarves and halflings don't have priests (clerics) or criminals (thieves). Are they irreligious? Do they have different views on property and crime? The answer I got was "no, just players can't be demihumans unless their fighters (or f/m if an elf)." Moving on to AD&D was a no brainer after that since demihumans could at least be criminals and priests. And as I started later, the question of "why can't X be y" was always arbitrary and mechanical rather than lore based (the reason dwarves can't be paladins was due to humans having access to a class no other race did rather than any real lore rational. Of course, having access to a class that was nearly impossible to meet the requirements for fairly was not much of a boon).

The answer to that issue is to make additional race as class options to cover these discrepancies. It can and has been done.

 

[Corinnguard]

5% is 5%, that doesn't leave much room to split the difference in, and adding it later doesn't increase how big 5% is.

5% as in you get all of your racial traits at 1st level? If this is the case, we could always do what PF2 (aka Featfinder) did by creating and spreading racial feats across a couple of levels.