D&D General Thoughts on Racial Classes?

[wingsandsword]

I'm thinking of removing both Tiefling and Dragonborns in my games. As a big fan on the Nentir Vale and 4e, I loved them, but in 5e, I went back to FR and I felt they were tack-on a little bit. Having them as a ''people'' instead of being a rare occurrence is weird so late in the setting development. And I prefer the old take on dragonborn: be from any playable race, be nice to the Draconic pantheon, get reborn as a draconic super soldier!

Want to play a human touched by an infernal taint? You play a human fiend warlock, or you could just say you are a tiefling champion fighter or by roleplaying it, on that point I dont really mind.

I don't like Dragonborn because they seemed cooked up for 4e just to underscore how different and "edgy" 4e was from everything that came before, and then existing settings tried to shoehorn them in because they were in the core rules.

(Yes, very technically they showed up in 3.5. . .as an obscure sect of worshipers of Bahamut in one sourcebook that turned themselves into draconic humanoids to serve Bahamut. . .but that was as a tiny and obscure sect devoted to one deity, not a core rules race)

Tieflings were already in D&D as a PC race going back to the mid 1990's with Planescape, and in 3e Forgotten Realms they became a PC race along with Aasimar.

Also, going by the original mythology, Merlin himself would be a tiefling. The classic Arthurian folklore (often overlooked in modern retelling) had Merlin's mother impregnated by a demon, and his fiendish bloodline was the reason for his magical talents. The concept has more roots in classic folklore and myths than halflings, and we accept those without a problem.

On that ground alone I could allow Tieflings as a PC race, albeit a very rare one.

 

[DammitVictor]

I dont know if you are playing 5e with those restrictions, but I'd sure like to see the write-up of your available classes/archetypes. I'm always trying to de-kitchen-sink-ing my take on the Forgotten realms and I think that would be an interesting way of doing it.

I am generally not down with Modern D&D anymore, but the sheer volume of content means I can generally get 3.X and PF to do what I want.

I'm currently doing this in AD&D, though I'm in the process of converting it to Rules Cyclopedia. I should note that I'm almost always willing to work with a player who wants to design a new racial class, as long as it fits within the theme of the race.

I break the Human classes down like this:

• Warrior: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Kensei, Sohei, Barbarian. Paladins, Rangers, and Sohei gain spellcasting at 4th and expanded spell lists.
• Rogue: Thief, Bard, Ninja. Bards have a more Druidic spell list. Ninjas gain spellcasting at 4th from Shadow, Mentalism, Illusion, Necromancy, and all Ninja spells in Complete Ninja's Handbook.
• Mage: Currently, all Human Mages are Specialist Wizards with more banned Schools and PF-style bonuses. I want to trim this way the hell down to no more than five or six iconic variants.
• Priest: Sadly limited to Cleric, Druid, and Shugenja at this time. My current WIP doesn't involve deities, so Specialty Priests don't make much sense. I need to expand these.
• Psychic: Mystic and Psion. These are a work in progress, as I don't have a psionics ruleset I like, and Mystic is going to take some adaptation. I intend to have more than two classes here.

Humans can multiclass. Their multiclassing options are expansive, but not unlimited.

There are a lot fewer classes for each nonhuman race.

Dwarf

• Warrior: Stalwart, Battlerager, Stonelord. Dwarven Warriors have d12 HD and their racial saving throw bonuses improve. Stonelords are basically Paladins, but Dwarves.
• Rogue: Sapper. Sappers have d8 HD, armor proficiencies, and more dungeon/siege Thief skills.
• Priest: Axepriest, Forgepriest, Hearthpriest. Dwarf Priests have d10 HD. Axepriests are more martial, like Crusaders; Hearthpriests are more like traditional Clerics, but Dwarves; Forgepriests are like divine artificers.

Stalwarts can multiclass with Sapper or any Priest. If I wanted to include Duergar (I do not), I would design them as a particularly martial Psychic class that could theoretically multiclass with any of the above.

Elf

All Elves are multiclass, choosing a Warrior type and a Rogue type that represents their innate magic. If pressed, I might allow an Elf PC to triple-class by doubling up on one or the other.

• Warrior: Bladesinger, Heartseeker, Nightblade. Bladesingers are melee specialists, Heartseekers are archers, Nightblades are like Ranger/Ninjas without the spellcasting abilities of either.
• Rogue: Eladrin, Grugach, Druchii. Eladrin represent all of the more celestial/otherwordly subtypes, Grugach represent all of the more primal/elemental subtypes, Druchii are dark/shadow elves but not Drow. This is more cultural/personal than racial, with Elven communities always having one supermajority and substantial minority populations.

If I wanted to do Drow (and I do not), they'd be a separate race following the same pattern-- basically Fighter/"Spellcaster"/Ninja, period, with "spellcaster" including a couple different types of creepy Mage and Priests of Drow gods.


Gnome/Halfling - I don't really have good answers for them yet. Frankly, their identity in TSR D&D is far too vague and diluted to make anything of it.

Half-Elf/Half-Orc - I hate them. I will probably write up class add-ons for Human classes that allow you to be a hybrid.

One of the several reasons I'm switching from AD&D2 to Classic D&D/OSE is to simplify all of this down to simply having a list of classes that are available to each race, with their own simplified XP tables and basic class options built into them.

 

[Immoralkickass]

Restricted race/class combos are stupid, and here's why:

DM: You can't roll a Half-orc Bladesinger, it says Elves only.
Me, an intellectual: You know the Reincarnate spell?
DM: What about it?
Me: I was born an elf, but died and got reincarnated into a half-orc

 

[prosfilaes]

WRT bladesingers, I don't think that it would automatically spread that quick. If there's a vast number of bladesingers and a very cosmopolitan society, then there would probably be non-elvish bladesingers. If there was a small society of bladesingers, magic itself being rare, some mutual distrust between elves and humans, bladesinging may not be something that non-elves think about doing, and even if they do the door just isn't open to them. Even if they did learn it somehow, elves would be chasing them for knowing it, or at least dropping a few levels in friendliness if they realize this human has stolen elvish secrets.

Medieval times were not known for sharing customs quickly. Go was around since at least 701, and the first known mention in the West was in 1694, when it got seven pages in a book about oriental games, and it wasn't until 1880 that Oskar Korschelt brought detailed descriptions to the west. In a medieval or even renaissance setting, Western characters shouldn't be Go players, and if the game is set in Japan, the DM or setting books should make it clear that's something that needs a good justification, not just dumping some points into Game (Go).

I always thought it was silly that Dwarves couldn't be wizards. . .after all, runes are very magical and definitely fitting with the dwarven motif.

Runes are letters. The same people who Tacitus recorded as runecasting probably expected that the Romans were pulling from a bag of Scrabble tiles for their own divination. And if there was dwarven magic in the game that felt like runic magic, it would be less of a thing for me.

Restricted race/class combos are stupid, and here's why:

DM: You can't roll a Half-orc Bladesinger, it says Elves only.
Me, an intellectual: You know the Reincarnate spell?
DM: What about it?
Me: I was born an elf, but died and got reincarnated into a half-orc

You're saying that it's stupid to say that PCs didn't have 5th spells cast upon them before starting at 1st level? My character wants a Browning Automatic Rifle, and if we happen to be playing in Golarion, people have made the trip from WWI Earth to Golarion before; does that mean my Pathfinder GM can't say no? Or even not tactically valuable things, like I want to play a Kender or Tinker Gnome--spelljammers are a part of FR lore, after all.

If a player wants to justify a half-orc bladesinger and comes to me with this carefully built story about how the character was an elven bladesinger and died and explains how the PC got a Reincarnate spell and how all this builds into the character, maybe I'll let them play a elven bladesinger who got reincarnated as a half-orc. On the other hand, if a player thinks Thogg the Gross would be more powerful as a bladesinger, and tosses out reincarnation as an excuse, no.

At the very least, restrictions like that indicate a bias in the world. Maybe you can come up with a reason for a non-elvish bladesinger, but make it better than "elves don't have optimal stats for what I want to do, and it doesn't say only elves".

 

[cbwjm]

I always thought it was silly that Dwarves couldn't be wizards. . .after all, runes are very magical and definitely fitting with the dwarven motif.

I felt the same, after all it was to the dwarves that the gods went for their magical items. I know that priests could make items but then it creates this weird circle of the gods needing magical items, empowering the dwarves with divine power, having the dwarves craft the items for the gods using that divine power.

 

[delphonso]

WRT bladesingers, I don't think that it would automatically spread that quick. If there's a vast number of bladesingers and a very cosmopolitan society, then there would probably be non-elvish bladesingers. If there was a small society of bladesingers, magic itself being rare, some mutual distrust between elves and humans, bladesinging may not be something that non-elves think about doing, and even if they do the door just isn't open to them. Even if they did learn it somehow, elves would be chasing them for knowing it, or at least dropping a few levels in friendliness if they realize this human has stolen elvish secrets.

Medieval times were not known for sharing customs quickly. Go was around since at least 701, and the first known mention in the West was in 1694, when it got seven pages in a book about oriental games, and it wasn't until 1880 that Oskar Korschelt brought detailed descriptions to the west. In a medieval or even renaissance setting, Western characters shouldn't be Go players, and if the game is set in Japan, the DM or setting books should make it clear that's something that needs a good justification, not just dumping some points into Game (Go).



Runes are letters. The same people who Tacitus recorded as runecasting probably expected that the Romans were pulling from a bag of Scrabble tiles for their own divination. And if there was dwarven magic in the game that felt like runic magic, it would be less of a thing for me.



You're saying that it's stupid to say that PCs didn't have 5th spells cast upon them before starting at 1st level? My character wants a Browning Automatic Rifle, and if we happen to be playing in Golarion, people have made the trip from WWI Earth to Golarion before; does that mean my Pathfinder GM can't say no? Or even not tactically valuable things, like I want to play a Kender or Tinker Gnome--spelljammers are a part of FR lore, after all.

If a player wants to justify a half-orc bladesinger and comes to me with this carefully built story about how the character was an elven bladesinger and died and explains how the PC got a Reincarnate spell and how all this builds into the character, maybe I'll let them play a elven bladesinger who got reincarnated as a half-orc. On the other hand, if a player thinks Thogg the Gross would be more powerful as a bladesinger, and tosses out reincarnation as an excuse, no.

At the very least, restrictions like that indicate a bias in the world. Maybe you can come up with a reason for a non-elvish bladesinger, but make it better than "elves don't have optimal stats for what I want to do, and it doesn't say only elves".

"Magic is rare" is something people say in the Forgotten Realms while flying and amplifying themselves with prestidigitation. Half the races have cantrips from birth. It's rare only in descriptions but in examples, extremely common.

Medieval knowledge sharing also doesn't apply since people can 1, live 700 years, 2, teleport, and 3, talk to all knowing deities.

I think your points do have a lot of value though, in that racial restrictions CAN and DO make sense depending on the setting. I would argue the generic DnD settings don't play to it well, but certain games might. And if your table is alright with that and it makes things more fun, go for it. It just shouldn't be listed as a rule (with very few exceptions) in official material.

Taking Go as an example, Go existed since ~500BCE in China as a game for aristocrats and only moved to Korea and Japan when enough diplomats were visiting or were exiled. Presumably, Marco Polo would have seen the game and could have learned it and brought it back to Europe earlier, but it seems he didn't. But in an alternate world, he could have, just as a visiting Half-orc could bring bladesinging out of an Elven forest. So if you want to make it air-tight, you need to work on it.

I'm hesitant to limit things for my players beyond shortening the race list (say in 3.5 days, when there were 50 monster races to play). But if any player comes to me wanting to play an interesting mix, I'll allow it as long as it makes some sort of sense in a party, if not the world. I've rejected a Duergar Fiend Warlock because the player was making a villain, not because of the class and race specifically, but because the description they had and I felt it was completely incompatible with a nature loving Barbarian and a Puritanical Cleric. They settled on Dwarf, rolled back the evilness a bit and it made for a super interesting dynamic.

 

[Mecheon]

And I prefer the old take on dragonborn: be from any playable race, be nice to the Draconic pantheon, get reborn as a draconic super soldier!

That wasn't how 3.5E ones worked. It was "Specifically follow Bahamut and get rebirthed into a dragon-person via a giant egg. Ever do An Evil Act and you're just turned back into whatever you once were" Which is, uh, -yeah- a thing I'm happy they didn't continue with. Dragonborn as honourable warrior sorts with a vague connection to dragons works better and I'm completely happy with 'em.

 

[Immoralkickass]

If a player wants to justify a half-orc bladesinger and comes to me with this carefully built story about how the character was an elven bladesinger and died and explains how the PC got a Reincarnate spell and how all this builds into the character, maybe I'll let them play a elven bladesinger who got reincarnated as a half-orc. On the other hand, if a player thinks Thogg the Gross would be more powerful as a bladesinger, and tosses out reincarnation as an excuse, no.

That's why its stupid. Why other subclass/class don't need to justify their race/class combo, but the Bladesinger has to? Nobody has to give a reason why they want to play a gnome/barbarian right?

If your subclass is so special that it can only be used by a very specific race, then maybe its a class for NPCs only. I don't mind restrictions such as "all races except Orcs", but to limit a class to one race is stupid to me.

 

[FrogReaver]

If your subclass is so special that it can only be used by a very specific race, then maybe its a class for NPCs only. I don't mind restrictions such as "all races except Orcs", but to limit a class to one race is stupid to me.

I think there's a very narrow band of setting where race/class combos can be restricted. I think if someone wanted to design an RPG from the ground up such that Dwarven Wizards are different than Elven Wizards and Dwarven Fighters are different than Elven Fighters etc, that would be a very good game. Highlighting that different races have different focuses because of their inherent strengths and weaknesses I think would work well.

In such a game I could see only Elves being bladesingers, only gnomes being illusionists, only tieflings being evokers, only protector aasmir being abjuration wizards etc. In this hypothetical game it's the race that's driving the particular form of wizardry.

 

[prosfilaes]

That's why its stupid. Why other subclass/class don't need to justify their race/class combo, but the Bladesinger has to? Nobody has to give a reason why they want to play a gnome/barbarian right?

But they will. Anyone who plays a gnome barbarian will probably tell you at length why their character is a gnome barbarian. It's certainly not because they're trying to maximize their power. Barbarian is not characterized as something special to one race, whereas bladesinger is. If it's a tradition that comes from being trained by a select group, then your character should have an explanation for how they ran with that group, especially if it's unlikely.

If your subclass is so special that it can only be used by a very specific race, then maybe its a class for NPCs only.

Prestige classes in 3E were invented to be so special, to exemplify a certain group in world instead of a generic fighter. As a player, I'd rather have the choice; if I don't want to play that race, I'm still no worse off

I don't mind restrictions such as "all races except Orcs", but to limit a class to one race is stupid to me.

I don't understand why. Is this just about having more player choices?