What do you think about Monte's new PHB Racial Levels?

[buzz]

I also have to disagree with the second half of the sentence. Learning to fight is a skill that can be taught and learned. Learning to be "more elven", for example, is something that isn't. If these classes were based on cultural abilities then I might be more inclined to agree, but they're not, IMO.

I think the hang-up here is the assumption that progressing in a class is akin to a course of study. There are plenty of classes (barbarian, monk, paladin, sorcerer, etc.) that simply *develop*, acquiring new abilities along the way. Why should it be any stranger to use race a theme for this development?

HERO doesn't care how you explain the spending of character points; it could be a mutation, training, growth, a "radiation accident," etc. Why not allow D&D this kind of flexibility? Racial classes, classes based off of templates (sort of like the Dragon Disciple, e.g., imagine a lycanthrope racial class), "profession" classes, PrC's... bring it on, I say!

 

[reapersaurus]

Re: Re: Is this right?

Also, a Human3/Paladin2 is certainly competitive with a Paladin5. The human levels will cause slightly less combat ability, no spells yet, and laying on hands and smite being not as developed. But the human levels give you more skill points, a stat bonus, and an extra feat. That seems a fair trade off to me.

umm.. no, it isn't competitive.

If I wanted to delay my Paladin progression by 3 levels, I think it's obvious that if you only wanted skills, a feat, and a stat boost, an assimar Rogue1/Ftr1/Pal2 would satisfy those criteria much better.

The fact remains that a couple of the races advance in spellcasting, but not other features (like druid wildshaping or paladin or sneak attack). This is a blatant oversight, and pretty close to the definition of discrimination against classes in game design.

 

[buzz]

Re: Re: Re: Is this right?

The fact remains that a couple of the races advance in spellcasting, but not other features (like druid wildshaping or paladin or sneak attack). This is a blatant oversight, and pretty close to the definition of discrimination against classes in game design.

But is this a conceptual issue, or an implementation issue? (If it even is an issue.)

 

[LightPhoenix]

I think the hang-up here is the assumption that progressing in a class is akin to a course of study.

IMO, it is. We simply don't agree on that, and so there's not really a point discussing it any more.

HERO doesn't care how you explain the spending of character points; it could be a mutation, training, growth, a "radiation accident," etc. Why not allow D&D this kind of flexibility? Racial classes, classes based off of templates (sort of like the Dragon Disciple, e.g., imagine a lycanthrope racial class), "profession" classes, PrC's... bring it on, I say!

For one, this isn't HERO.

Two, you can explain stuff any way you'd like, again, I'm not going anywhere and beating people just because they and I don't think alike. If you want to play a Paladin who magically becomes adept at fighting and such, be my guest.

Third, I don't like the Dragon Disciple either, but then that class represents metamorphosis into something you're not.

 

[buzz]

For one, this isn't HERO.

Ah, if only t'were...

Just making a comparison. Me like, you no like, it's all cool. One of my DMs has already declared the racial levels "legal" in his campaign, so we'll see how they work in play.

 

[Ravellion]

Re: Re: Re: Is this right?

umm.. no, it isn't competitive.

If I wanted to delay my Paladin progression by 3 levels, I think it's obvious that if you only wanted skills, a feat, and a stat boost, an assimar Rogue1/Ftr1/Pal2 would satisfy those criteria much better.

The fact remains that a couple of the races advance in spellcasting, but not other features (like druid wildshaping or paladin or sneak attack). This is a blatant oversight, and pretty close to the definition of discrimination against classes in game design.

That's a HD less, your starting HD a d6 (yet another hp lost), equal paladin goodies, a more restrictive bonus feat, slightly worse saves, lower max rank... nope, I disagree.

But even then, I think comparing the Paladin 10 with a paladin7/human3 is actually far more interesting. I'd say these two characters are somewhat equal, if the skills chosen would be combat useful (Spot & listen for instance).

Rav

 

[Valiantheart]

Bleh. I really dont like this. Seems redundant to any other class.
I hope D&D 4E focuses more on the feat idea. Giving all classes more feats would allow them to twink and customize their characters as they see fit. Add a few racial feats and all of these class advancement things are taken care of.

 

[The Little Raven]

Re: Re: Re: Is this right?

The fact remains that a couple of the races advance in spellcasting, but not other features (like druid wildshaping or paladin or sneak attack). This is a blatant oversight, and pretty close to the definition of discrimination against classes in game design.

Well, none of the core races have favored class druid or paladin, so why would any of those classes add to their abilities? Humans and half-elves can increase the spellcasting of either of those classes by taking racial levels. Halflings (with Rogue as favored class) don't gain sneak attack bonuses, but do gain bonuses to Rogue class skills, saving throw (always helpful for a rogue), and thrown weapons, then the +2 Dex, which is VERY nice for rogues.

As for it being discrimination against classes... ummm... what? Gearing racial classes towards the race's favored class is about as discriminating as the race having a favored class.

It's not a blatant oversight. It's a deliberating skewed game mechanic. Just like True Necromancer is skewed towards Necromancy spells.

 

[reapersaurus]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this right?

Well, none of the core races have favored class druid or paladin, so why would any of those classes add to their abilities?

It's not a blatant oversight. It's a deliberating skewed game mechanic.

umm.. you say tomato, I say tomatoe....
"A deliberately skewed game mechanic" sure sounds the same thing to me as being discriminatory against any class other than a prime spellcasting class.

The fact remains, that humans don't have Favored Class: Wizard, so why should human levels give you 2/3rds spellcasting, when it doesn't give you 2/3rd of the benefit of any other class?
That seems to me to be pretty obviously a "Blatant oversight".

 

[Nellisir]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this right?

The fact remains, that humans don't have Favored Class: Wizard, so why should human levels give you 2/3rds spellcasting, when it doesn't give you 2/3rd of the benefit of any other class?

IMO, using a druid and wildshape is a bad example; the +1 spellcasting can be applied to druid just as easily as a cleric or a wizard, and while humans don't get bonus wildshapes, they also don't get bonuses to their turning attempts, or bonus metamagic feats.

One could allow a player to appy the +1 spellcasting to spellcasting abilities gained after the human class is taken, in which case it could also apply to bards, paladins, and rangers.

Barbarians, fighters, rogues, and monks are still left out in the cold, but if you remove the bonus spellcasting levels and add a unnamed, broad spectrum +1 bonus to hit at first level...it's closer to even.

Cheers
Nell.