Race "roles"

[Sunseeker]

Yes, every race should get a few abilities that work well with their class choice.

Granted, that's a LOT of stuff. But it's better than giving a race only a few abilities that are only useful if you make a certain class.

There is no logical reason X race cannot be Y class, any arguments that X race does or does not have Z that keeps it from being Y are antiquated concepts from when the only ideas of X race came from Wizards.

 

[MarkChevallier]

I don't want races to be given certain abilities only with certain classes, not in a general way. If a specific, defensible case existed which had merits it'd be worth considering, but I don't like what it would encourage if generally applied (as others have noted above, every bow wielder, an elf).

Personally, I'd prefer it if playing an elf (for example) meant that being a really good archer was easier, but I do not want that in order to be the best possible archer, you have to be an elf. (Extend this preference across most cases!)

The thread about combat roles made me think. According to its poll, most people want a member of each class to be able to perform any combat role (striker, tank etc.). What if we expanded this approach to races?

Speaking for myself, I didn't vote in the poll on the other thread because I think the notion of combat roles as defined is limited to a particular kind of artificial tactics that only make sense in the context of a 4e miniatures battle. Because I want to see the scope of battles be broader, I'm against the notion of combat roles all together. I think there were a few people in that category, so I wouldn't read too much into the results of the poll, which carry an implicit assumption that combat roles will continue to exist in 5e.

 

[CleverNickName]

I like the idea of each race having a "favored" class, but I don't really care for roles.

So for me, the best solution would be to make favored classes more important*, and make roles less important.



*useful, flavorful, crunchy, dynamic, mechanically-sound, etc.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Nah, this is asking for munchkinism, especially if multiclassing is a viable prospect in 5E. I tkae a level in X, and not only do I get X's class features, but my race tosses in a bit of a bonus, too!!!!!!

Not really a fan.

 

[Sunseeker]

Nah, this is asking for munchkinism, especially if multiclassing is a viable prospect in 5E. I tkae a level in X, and not only do I get X's class features, but my race tosses in a bit of a bonus, too!!!!!!

Not really a fan.

Simple solution: you can only ever get one bonus, and you must take it at character creation.

 

[CM]

Caution, snark ahead:

The takeaway for me from this thread and for the one on class roles is:

Pigeonhole races? A-OK!

Pigeonhole classes? HELL NO!

 

[keterys]

Races felt pigeon-holed in 4e. If you wanted to play certain races you would be noticeably worse than other characters if you chose classes that didn't align with at least one and sometimes both of your stat bonuses.

I'm not sure that was all that true outside of the internet echo chamber.

+1 hit and damage is rarely noticeable at the table and in general play - for example, it might come up once per night of play. Meanwhilst the extra +1 to a defense might also come up once per night of play.

Now, some of the people who chose less efficient races also chose less efficient class options, feats, concepts, items, themes, etc. And all that would stack up, until it was a bit of an albatross.

And yeah, +3 attack, +10 damage, and 3 extra attacks per combat? Yeah, that's noticeable at the table. I remember seeing someone roll a 15, and miss, because they had a 12 primary stat, no expertise, and had a lower enhancement bonus on their 2nd or 3rd weapon/implement... and yeah, _that_ caused the table to pause.

But the difference of +2 to one stat for one character and +2 to a different stat (or a bonus feat or bonus to defenses) for another? Not so much.

...

Personally, I'd like folks to pick a race cause it sounds fun or fits their concept, no matter their class. So, races shouldn't really gravitate to hardly any classes, or should have flexible bonuses so no matter your class it matters (dwarf rogue? Sorry, wasted your axe bonus and your heavy armor bonus and your...)

 

[Khaalis]

I had to vote no.

I want races to feel unique and I want there to be stereotypes of those races for a reason. When someone wants to play on off-stereotype character, I want that to mean something.

As an example, using a Star Trek quote:
“[…]no one would suggest that a Klingon would be a good ship's counselor or that a Berellian could be an engineer…”
Does this mean that a Klingon CAN’T be a counselor? No, it just means that it would be irregular as Klingon counselors are rare and usually more suited to political or religious counseling than psychological.

So back to fantasy… can a dwarf be a rogue? Sure. It’s just not the norm. Dwarven rogues have a place in dwarven society, but they also don’t quite rank in the social order as high as warriors or priests. Are there Halfling warriors? Sure, but they are the rare few. Etc.

JMHO. YMMV.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Yeah, I like races being better at some classes and worse at others. It's more fun when you buck the trend. If everyone's good at everything, no one's special, y'know?

As an asside, what with Charisma becoming more and more "force of personality" and not "likeability" I really can't stand the idea of Dwarves (or even Half-Orcs) having Cha minuses.

It doesn't make them "gruff" it makes them "wishy-washy".

I'm not opposed to negative ability modifiers in general, and a case could be made for a race with a negative Cha modifier (Goblins, for instance, craven as they are)

But Dwarves and Half-Orcs? Both strike me as (while not being diplomatic about it) having a decisive, commanding presencem which is more what Cha means these days.