D&D General Thoughts on Racial Classes?

[Charlaquin]

I’m not a fan of class restrictions based on race. By all means, have the fluff explain that bladesinging is an elven tradition never taught to outsiders, or that dwarves seldom practice drudism or whatever. But leave room for the player characters to be exceptions to those generalities.

 

[Dormammu]

This sounds like a cop out answer, but of course it’s going to depend on what players want out of a game. Current default D&D assumptions are the gonzo fantasy that, to me, feels like a mashup of comic superheroes and Chinese mystical kung fu. For that setting, restrictions would be absurd.

While I love both traditional four-color comics and Hong Kong action movies, the appeal of fantasy for me is the connection to real world mythology and folklore. So for me, the old school D&D style of restricting classes by race feels better. I like worlds that double down on these ideas, even restricting humans (heaven forbid!). Without those archetypal distinctions, I would actually rather play a different genre (superhero, sci fi, or whatever) to get to the gonzo place.

 

[Weiley31]

I say in a lore perspective, there is nothing wrong from it. I have two Bladesingers who are human. One learned it from her elven step brother and the other learned it from his ex who is an Elven Bladesinger as well. Of course that is taboo in eleven culture and things become "interesting" if they encounter another Bladesinger.

 

[prosfilaes]

I've said for my next campaign that the old races (elves, dwarves, orcs and kobolds) can't be clerics or paladins (champions, in PF2 terms). I think it gives a part of the setting; these races predate the gods (all of whom ascended) and can't themselves ascend, or even gain power from worship. I was somewhat disappointed when dwarves could become wizards in 3E; it made the race distinctive by exclusion, and doesn't really limit the players, not the way rejecting a whole race or class does, and nobody permits every odd 3rd party race or class, or even every first party race or class. OD&D racial classes are too far, as probably 1E was, but I think there's a bit of flavor that restricting things from or to certain races can add, especially when it shows up part of the campaign world.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is one of those things that truthfully only matters to the DM during their "world building" phase. Because once the game is initiated and the players have created their PCs... you pretty much have every other race/class combination the players didn't use as "restricted". Whether there are no Dwarf Wizards in the game because you as the DM didn't "allow" them, or there are none because no players decided to make one... the result is exactly the same. There will be no Dwarf Wizards in the game.

So if you as the DM don't make certain combos available to be chosen from the beginning, it's not really going to end up mattering because there's a high percentage chance they weren't going to be selected anyway. So go ahead. If it helps in your own DM's internal head-canon to say "No demihuman races can be Paladins, they are strictly a Human class"... then go for it. Your five players will have more than enough other choices available to them that they aren't going to miss much. Heck... you could even only say within your own head "These race/class combos are restricted" and never tell the players of that list... and you could end up having the list come true through no effort of your own.

 

[Richards]

Heck... you could even only say within your own head "These race/class combos are restricted" and never tell the players of that list... and you could end up having the list come true through no effort of your own.

But then you run the risk of a player choosing a "forbidden" race/class combo because you didn't warn him ahead of time and getting stuck in the position of either making the "forbidden" race/class combo suddenly okay to run or having to tell him after the fact his PC is retroactively not allowed.

Johnathan

 

[DEFCON 1]

But then you run the risk of a player choosing a "forbidden" race/class combo because you didn't warn him ahead of time and getting stuck in the position of either making the "forbidden" race/class combo suddenly okay to run or having to tell him after the fact his PC is retroactively not allowed.

Johnathan

Well of course... but my point was that what essentially ends up being "forbidden combinations" of race and class are like 50 times larger than race/class combos that are "allowed" because the "allowed" combos just end up being the four or five combos the players actually selected. Everything else that wasn't selected pretty much becomes a "forbidden combo" because the DM and players aren't seeing it. So even by just doing nothing whatsoever, a DM could see their "banned" list coming to fruition just because of the numbers and odds involved. And they never have to be a "jerk" by giving their players a banned list.

Although as I'm a DM who sees nothing wrong with changing up allowable things depending on campaign... I'd always say give them a banned list if it matters for the game. And those that don't like it and want to play a banned combo? Tell them to try something new for once and make a choice that they ordinarily wouldn't make. Or of course just choose not to play in the game. Whichever way they want to go.

 

[prosfilaes]

Well of course... but my point was that what essentially ends up being "forbidden combinations" of race and class are like 50 times larger than race/class combos that are "allowed" because the "allowed" combos just end up being the four or five combos the players actually selected.

If "forbidden combinations" are features of the world, that's not true. If you forbid dwarf wizards because dwarves can't do arcane magic, then dwarf NPCs shouldn't be wizards; if it just happens that nobody plays a dwarf wizard, dwarf wizards could be dominant in the arcane world.

 

[oreofox]

I don't care much for class restrictions based on race. Even from the base D&D, including 5e, there are soft "restrictions" due to racial ability scores bonuses being for specific scores, which is why you see so many elven wizards, halfling rogues, tiefling warlocks (discounting the edgelord draw of that combination), and half-orc barbarians. While they aren't hard restrictions such as those in AD&D, some players out there might feel you aren't being optimized because you went with a half-orc rogue or a halfling fighter (especially a Str-based one).

I open up any and all race/class combos. Races only give a +1 to a score of the player's choice, while the class gives a +2 to a score relevant to the class (Int for wizards, Str or Dex for fighters, etc).

 

[DammitVictor]

I got my start in AD&D after the damage had already been done, and didn't really understand the difference until years later, but I will go to my grave swearing that separating race from class was a terrible mistake. Given that almost every single non-human race has infravision and the vast majority of them have the exact same class selection-- Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Fighter/Cleric, Fighter/Thief-- there's practically no reason to have nonhuman playable characters at all.

In my games, not only are nonhuman races restricted from playing certain core classes, they're restricted from playing any core classes at all-- each race has a handful of race-specific classes they're allowed to take, period. These classes include the traditional racial abilities and expand upon them, because class has been a much bigger design space than race for as long as the two have been separated.

Do it right, so that most races have the equivalent of most party roles and you leave some room for individual customization, it works out fine: most players don't feel stifled with the limited selection, and PCs of different races (but similar classes) end up feeling very different, even at higher levels. Plus, once you have a real firm grasp of how a given race's classes work... it's not that difficult to come up with new variations that fit that theme.