Should races have mechanical effects?

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Races should not have any effects that stack with other bonuses.

...

But consider a racial like the elves' old ability to use a longsword. This doesn't really stack with anything. But it is a strict benefit that has a mechanical effect on the game, and might come in handy.

That's one of the reasons I like race-as-class. The bonuses don't stack with any particular class-- and they're paid for.

 

[Rampant]

There is a middle ground between racial levels and no racial levels.

Racial paragon classes.

Short (though I suppose they could be expanded), classes tied to a race , with no other requirements, that can be multied into and out of like normal classes, but turn people who take them into exemplars of a race.

They could even offer partial advancement in classes related to your race, similar to +1 spell casting, or monk abilities from 3e.

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=5038]Greg K[/MENTION]

Can't seem to XP you again at the moment, but I heartily agree with all you say and present, including all your sigs.

It sounds like I would certainly like to play at your table.

Back to races - why can't they simply have a similar mechanic to classes? But not levels as in multiclassing or even substitution levels (though that is closer). As you gain a level, you gain, lets call it a talent . It can be chosen from the several Talent Trees that suit your class, the one or two for your theme or background, or the few racial ones. Player then puts focus on what is more important to them.

Of course Talent Trees could overlap. For eg the Weapon Specialist TT would be obviously open for Fighters, but Rangers could use it for Bows or Two-Weapon fighting (if you like those styles), or an elf with bows, dwarves with axes and warhammers, etc. No great mechanical benefits here, just more access/choices. (I have always wanted to develop a game like this since SW SAGA).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Re: racial class levels

IMHO, Monte Cook nailed them in AU/AE. They wer mechanically identical to character classes, advancing BAB, saves, etc. Each race had a certain baseline set of abilities which would be improved as you took levels in the racial class.

And the choice was yours as to wether you took any levels in those classes whatsoever.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Re: racial class levels

IMHO, Monte Cook nailed them in AU/AE. They wer mechanically identical to character classes, advancing BAB, saves, etc. Each race had a certain baseline set of abilities which would be improved as you took levels in the racial class.

And the choice was yours as to wether you took any levels in those classes whatsoever.

This is certainly sounding like it is the way to go, but that is only assuming if they repeat the 3E method of multi-classing. If they don't go that route (which is a reasonably high possibility), then it is somewhat less elegant.

I am strongly in favor of having both a 3E-style race/class divide and having race-as-class as an option, regardless of how multiclassing works. That way you can have a dwarf warrior, a dwarf rogue, or just a dwarf, and the system will be flexible enough for a lot of different things.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Reading the thread on the latest Legends and Lore column, I began wondering: What if 5E offers races, but no mechanical impact of race?

By this, I mean that choosing a race would be strictly a roleplaying decision. No stat modifiers, no skill bonuses, no racial bonuses to hitting stuff with certain weapons.

To me, one of the design decisions I least liked about 3.x was exactly these mechanical differences. Too often players chose a race as part of a build, just to get a specific bonus, yet the resulting character never seemed any different from an identical build with a human.

By removing mechanical impacts, race is freed to be a roleplaying choice. If one wants to play the stereotypical tough dwarf, go for it - just assign the stats to fit that vision. But if one wants to play a dwarven wizard, that works too - your stats won't be any different, won't get in the way of having an effective character. And if the player really isn't interested in being an elf or whatever, choosing human doesn't matter (mechanically) either.

Acceptable? Or a deal breaker?

In older editions of D&D, people chose race in order to maximize a class as well - you picked elf if you wanted to be a fighter/mage or dwarf if you wanted to be a beefy fighter, half-elf if you wanted to be a rogue without any penalty to thief skills, etc. It's nothing new to later editions.

I like the the newer editions at least gave you incentive to be human, and that they tried to make the races more balanced in general.