# Races as classes



## DnD Warlord (Jul 19, 2020)

I have been thinking more and more about basic d&d and the dwarf and elf classes. 

With everything going on with race changes I wonder about going back to racial classes. Not as mandatory. Like as a multi class.

So at 1st level if you take wizard fighter ect...you basically would be a human variant with some fluff and maybe a single ribbon making you an elf, teifling ect.... then as you level you can take levels in your race making you more of that race. 

So an elf might get some spells and some Fey traits if they take levels in elf...a dragonborn would get more and more draconian traits.

I remember 3.5 had mini prestige classes like this in a book...like 5 levels. I was thinking if we take almost everything from races would could make at least 10 level classes.


----------



## DnD Warlord (Jul 19, 2020)

I don't know why I hut 6e, I meant to hit 5e...so I hope people see this


----------



## jmartkdr2 (Jul 19, 2020)

If I wanted to put that idea back into 5e, I'd be more inclined towards racial subclasses - so  a special dwarf fighter who's good with axes and really hard to move or move past, as opposed to an elf fighter who's great at switching between ranged and melee fighting and can add a splash of magic, and a dragonborn fighter who learns to blend their breath weapon into their weapon attack routine, and so on. 

I'd want these for most races for _at least_ fighter, cleric, rogue, and wizard, but wouldn't be opposed to them for other classes depending on how good the individual subclasses are. 

In other words, battlerager and bladesinger being one-race only wasn't a bad idea, regardless of one's opinion on the execution of the idea.


----------



## Orcslayer78 (Jul 19, 2020)

You could try *Master of None* on the DMGuild, it explains how to dual multiclass at the same time for characters, the only problem is the book says that those characters would be overpowered compared to a single class character but for me there are two easy ways to fix this problem: you bring back XP and make them level up requiring double the amount of XP compared to a single class character or you simply make them level up every two milestones instead than one.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jul 19, 2020)

Never liked races as classes in old editions. I was kinda interested in UA's Paragon Classes in 3e, which were 3-levels racial classes but not standalone classes, you could only multiclassed into. The idea of those was to emphasize being an elf or an orc. Doesn't seem a good idea anymore nowadays.


----------



## The Mirrorball Man (Jul 19, 2020)

In Arcana Unearthed, every race was a prestige class as well.


----------



## Orcslayer78 (Jul 19, 2020)

Li Shenron said:


> The idea of those was to emphasize being an elf or an orc. Doesn't seem a good idea anymore nowadays.



So basically roleplaying and differentiate characters is no more a good idea anymore? Everyone should just play humans in different shapes? Pointy eared humans? short an bearded humans? scaly humans? demonic horned humans? gray skin humans? pointy eared coal skin humans?


----------



## Marandahir (Jul 19, 2020)

jmartkdr2 said:


> If I wanted to put that idea back into 5e, I'd be more inclined towards racial subclasses - so  a special dwarf fighter who's good with axes and really hard to move or move past, as opposed to an elf fighter who's great at switching between ranged and melee fighting and can add a splash of magic, and a dragonborn fighter who learns to blend their breath weapon into their weapon attack routine, and so on.
> 
> I'd want these for most races for _at least_ fighter, cleric, rogue, and wizard, but wouldn't be opposed to them for other classes depending on how good the individual subclasses are.
> 
> In other words, battlerager and bladesinger being one-race only wasn't a bad idea, regardless of one's opinion on the execution of the idea.




Eek, I disagree. No reason why the Swordmage Wizard should be only for Elves or the Spiked Armor Barbarian should be only for Dwarves.

Always disliked ancestry-restricted classes/paragon paths/prestige classes/epic destinies. It's like saying, 'nope you can't do the thing because you weren't born a special way. Too bad!'

Ancestry is about where you came from. There is no choice involved here (usually) - for the character in world. They can't help but be a dwarf, for example. But class is about who you are, what you choose to be. They CAN choose to be a Bladesinger, despite the world culturally accepting only Elves as guild-sanctioned Bladesingers. They're fighting an uphill battle, but D&D is just as much about defying the odds as it is about conforming to them.

This is why race-classes were so bad to begin with. It meant that only humans (and a rare few others) could choose to make their own destinies, if you played an Elf or a Dwarf you were stuck being like every other elf or dwarf. Defy the odds. Be your own person. That's what it means to walk the road of a class.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Jul 19, 2020)

Racial Paragon Classes, but today it needs a change to allow more flexibility. 



			Racial Paragon Classes :: d20srd.org


----------



## Orcslayer78 (Jul 19, 2020)

Marandahir said:


> Eek, I disagree. No reason why the Swordmage Wizard should be only for Elves or the Spiked Armor Barbarian should be only for Dwarves.
> 
> Always disliked ancestry-restricted classes/paragon paths/prestige classes/epic destinies. It's like saying, 'nope you can't do the thing because you weren't born a special way. Too bad!'
> 
> ...



Aaaand....who cares?

The OP asked for help to put racial classes back in the game, not if he should do it or if it's acceptable for the commenters or if they agree with it, if you don't like this idea why are you even commenting to this thread?


----------



## ccs (Jul 19, 2020)

Race as class was 1) the first thing we ever house ruled in Basic, 2) was the primary reason we switched to 1e once we found it.

So no. I will not support this idea.


----------



## DnD Warlord (Jul 19, 2020)

ccs said:


> Race as class was 1) the first thing we ever house ruled in Basic, 2) was the primary reason we switched to 1e once we found it.
> 
> So no. I will not support this idea.



Even if it was an option?  Again you could in this system play an elf that is basicly a human with dark vision and a ribbon with 1 less skill...and still take any class in the game, or you could take levels in elf and get Fey ancestry elven weapon training some spells and perception bonuses


----------



## DnD Warlord (Jul 19, 2020)

Marandahir said:


> Eek, I disagree. No reason why the Swordmage Wizard should be only for Elves or the Spiked Armor Barbarian should be only for Dwarves.
> 
> Always disliked ancestry-restricted classes/paragon paths/prestige classes/epic destinies. It's like saying, 'nope you can't do the thing because you weren't born a special way. Too bad!'
> 
> ...



Except again this problem is solved by multi classing or just not taking that class to begin with...


----------



## Marandahir (Jul 19, 2020)

Orcslayer78 said:


> Aaaand....who cares?
> 
> The OP asked for help to put racial classes back in the game, not if he should do it or if it's acceptable for the commenters or if they agree with it, if you don't like this idea why are you even commenting to this thread?



That's not what the OP said.

DnD Warlord "wonder[ed] about going back to racial classes." I'm saying it's wrongheaded, even if just an option.



DnD Warlord said:


> Even if it was an option?  Again you could in this system play an elf that is basicly a human with dark vision and a ribbon with 1 less skill...and still take any class in the game, or you could take levels in elf and get Fey ancestry elven weapon training some spells and perception bonuses






> Except again this problem is solved by multi classing or just not taking that class to begin with...




The problem with the above is that now humans are the second-class citizens. Why do Elves and Dwarves get special classes just for them while Humans are stuck being just empty slates?

You see the problem - it's mixing where you came from with who you are. 5e has a problem of that too, by giving out "racial proficiencies" with weapons or tools. But this makes the problem even worse.


----------



## opacitizen (Jul 19, 2020)

Marandahir said:


> Always disliked ancestry-restricted classes/paragon paths/prestige classes/epic destinies. It's like saying, 'nope you can't do the thing because you weren't born a special way. Too bad!'
> 
> Ancestry is about where you came from. There is no choice involved here (usually) - for the character in world. They can't help but be a dwarf, for example. But class is about who you are, what you choose to be. They CAN choose to be a Bladesinger, despite the world culturally accepting only Elves as guild-sanctioned Bladesingers. They're fighting an uphill battle, but D&D is just as much about defying the odds as it is about conforming to them.




I'm not sure I understand you correctly, so let me know if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're suggesting a literal fishman with both lungs and gills shouldn't be the only one with access to a "deep sea warrior" class, it should be open to humans and aarakocra etc as well, right from level one, even though they have only lungs. Similarly, a "winged bombardier" class shouldn't be limited to aarakocra and the like who have actual wings, but should be open to everyone, because… hey, in D&D you CAN be anything?

What's wrong with your character not having a certain set of choices, as long as you the player are free to choose a (different) character which would let you explore that set of choices? Want to play a "deep sea warrior"? Play a fishman! Want to play a "winged bombardier"? Okay, play an aarakocra or something with actual wings! But — without your DM's approval — don't try and play a dwarf in either case, because, frankly, dwarves can't swim underwater for hours, and they can't really fly either.

And the same goes for less physically but culturally limited stuff as well. Unless you are one now, do you think you could be a… say… a Japanese geisha in real life? Or the president of the US, if you're not a natural born citizen of the US? Could you now go and become a member of the Spetsnaz? In a totally unrealistic fantasy yeah, you could, maybe, if your GM let you. But coherent worlds based on general rules are made more interesting by limitations and unique combinations, aren't they?

Sorry if I misconstrued what you mean. Feel free to correct me.


----------



## DnD Warlord (Jul 19, 2020)

Marandahir said:


> That's not what the OP said.
> 
> DnD Warlord "wonder[ed] about going back to racial classes." I'm saying it's wrongheaded, even if just an option.
> 
> ...



I don't see the problem...although maybe you misunderstood me. Why wouldn't humans have such a class...they did in 3.5.  Infact I would go so far as say half elf would NOT have one but could take BOTH elf and human. 

Again the idea isnt to force elves into a slot but to allow the. Maximum amount of let way for concept.


----------



## Marandahir (Jul 19, 2020)

opacitizen said:


> I'm not sure I understand you correctly, so let me know if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're suggesting a literal fishman with both lungs and gills shouldn't be the only one with access to a "deep sea warrior" class, it should be open to humans and aarakocra etc as well, right from level one, even though they have only lungs. Similarly, a "winged bombardier" class shouldn't be limited to aarakocra and the like who have actual wings, but should be open to everyone, because… hey, in D&D you CAN be anything?
> 
> What's wrong with your character not having a certain set of choices, as long as you the player are free to choose a (different) character which would let you explore that set of choices? Want to play a "deep sea warrior"? Play a fishman! Want to play a "winged bombardier"? Okay, play an aarakocra or something with actual wings! But — without your DM's approval — don't try and play a dwarf in either case, because, frankly, dwarves can't swim underwater for hours, and they can't really fly either.
> 
> ...



No worries, I guess I wasn't clear about it.

Some things are unique to what you are.

So a literal fishman with gills, like the Triton or say the Locathah, those are features that belong in the ancestry column. They shouldn't be mixed with a class line. All fishmen with gills should be able to breath underwater and have a swim speed.

SOME fishmen with gills may know how to use a trident and net and crossbow underwater, but this shouldn't be all of them. And some humans should be able to learn how to use those too. These are features of the "diver" class (or background). They're part of your learned skills, not your heritage.

I think ancestries can and should have ability scores, ribbon features, and mechanical features. But they should be divorced from anything that would be learned due to culture. It was wrong in 2014, it's still wrong in 2020.

Likewise, classes should not represent where you came from, but who you choose to be. Even Sorcerers only came as far as 1st level because they started dabbling with their magic, experimenting to see what happens.

As for a President of the US, that's a political situation. If the character wanted to be President really badly enough, they might dismantle the government and make new rules. They'd probably fail, but it's still something they could choose to do, not a fact of their biology.


----------



## Marandahir (Jul 19, 2020)

DnD Warlord said:


> I don't see the problem...although maybe you misunderstood me. Why wouldn't humans have such a class...they did in 3.5.  Infact I would go so far as say half elf would NOT have one but could take BOTH elf and human.
> 
> Again the idea isnt to force elves into a slot but to allow the. Maximum amount of let way for concept.




Maybe I did misunderstand you, so my apologies if so.

My point is that by crossing those streams, you start getting into a DM-may-I situation, where certain things that should be learnable, even if extremely difficult, are locked behind ancestry rather than culture.

I know about the 3.5e Prestige Class (I have a copy of Races of Destiny), and it was very weird that these were human-specific things.


----------



## ccs (Jul 19, 2020)

DnD Warlord said:


> Even if it was an option?  Again you could in this system play an elf that is basicly a human with dark vision and a ribbon with 1 less skill...and still take any class in the game, or you could take levels in elf and get Fey ancestry elven weapon training some spells and perception bonuses




I thought what I wrote was clear enough:
I will not support this idea.

I have no desire to play an (elf/dwarf/etc) that is "basically a human".
I have no desire to play an elf etc with less of its features.
I have no desire to waste time or character options leveling up "elf" features.
If i want to play an elf ill just skip to the chase & play an elf.

And I view rule book pages devoted to this idea as a waste of space.  It was a waste of space in 3.5 & it'd be a waste in a future product. 
Worse, its a waste of design time/effort.  Any moment wasted on this by the designers is time/effort not being spent in a better fashion.

So no. I will not support this idea.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jul 19, 2020)

DnD Warlord said:


> I have been thinking more and more about basic d&d and the dwarf and elf classes.
> 
> With everything going on with race changes I wonder about going back to racial classes. Not as mandatory. Like as a multi class.
> 
> ...



I'd be more okay with it as feat chains, with everyone getting at least one feat at level 1. 5e isn't built in a way where disrupting the class level progression makes sense for most characters.


----------



## Marandahir (Jul 19, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I'd be more okay with it as feat chains, with everyone getting at least one feat at level 1. 5e isn't built in a way where disrupting the class level progression makes sense for most characters.




I think Feats are probably the better space for this too, because they CAN reflect things outside of the character's control, and play nicely with Theros' Supernatural Gifts.


----------



## Blue (Jul 19, 2020)

DnD Warlord said:


> I have been thinking more and more about basic d&d and the dwarf and elf classes.
> 
> With everything going on with race changes I wonder about going back to racial classes. Not as mandatory. Like as a multi class.
> 
> ...




How about the other way around.  Choose your race.  Give them plenty of features and power, so that you can have a halfling, a half ogre, and a flying sprite in the same party and the same power level.  Let people actually play all of the fantastical archetypical races that D&D often neglects.

Once you have  a race, then you can learn some things on top of it.


----------



## jmartkdr2 (Jul 19, 2020)

Marandahir said:


> Eek, I disagree. No reason why the Swordmage Wizard should be only for Elves or the Spiked Armor Barbarian should be only for Dwarves.



I think I was unclear -

I don't like Bladesinger being elf-only. But that's because it was (at the time) the only way to play a certain broader archetype (swordmage), and that's not something that should be restricted to one race. 

But I do think you could do a decent elf-only subclass that builds on elf-specific ideas. The only way that would be categorically untrue is if there were no elf-specific tropes to build off of, but at that point why have races?

(Which is, I suppose, a fair question. But outside the scope of this thread.)


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jul 19, 2020)

Just curious, but isn't this the system of "Old D&D" or "proto-D&D"? That "dwarf" is it's own class, as it elf, and that only humans can have their own class like "wizard" or "warrior"?

It is something that I think is very feasible for worlds like Greyhawk (or even the Witcher) where humans are dominant and the other races marginalized, but for something like FR it doesn't really work.


----------



## DnD Warlord (Jul 19, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> Just curious, but isn't this the system of "Old D&D" or "proto-D&D"? That "dwarf" is it's own class, as it elf, and that only humans can have their own class like "wizard" or "warrior"?
> 
> It is something that I think is very feasible for worlds like Greyhawk (or even the Witcher) where humans are dominant and the other races marginalized, but for something like FR it doesn't really work.



Yes way back when it was dwarf was it's own class...I am suggestioning a modern version.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jul 19, 2020)

DnD Warlord said:


> Yes way back when it was dwarf was it's own class...I am suggestioning a modern version.




I encourage you to check out Dungeon Crawl Classics, as I believe this is the system they use.


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 19, 2020)

Okay

Player "I'm going to take a level of gnome"
GM "cool you shrink 3 feet and get a pot belly and a passion for tinkering with small engines"
Player "why do I feel like my grandpa?"


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Jul 19, 2020)

Into the Unknown, a OSR-retro-inspired take on 5e have the core 4 classes and 3 racial classes: Dwarf, elf and Halfling. All classes go to 10th level.

Or, 5 Torches Deep is another good retro-take on 5e. In this specific case, the game has races different from class, but I personally dont like much of they implemented them. Since its also a game with 10 levels, it would be simple to create new races-as-classes for this system.


----------



## Haldrik (Jul 20, 2020)

@DnD Warlord

If going in this direction. I would rather every level 1 character get 3 feats. Then a player who wants, can choose feats that build traits to represent ones species.

For example, to build a Sun Elf, I would use one feat to boost Charisma, an other feat to get Misty Step and a light cantrip, and an other feat to get something else depending on concept, maybe even some form of magic resistance.

To build a "High Elf"
I would boost Dex, get always on Mage Armor, and think of something else, maybe even a griffon companion.

Alternatively, a player can use these 3 feats for something else entirely, and use some or none of these feats for the species.


----------



## not-so-newguy (Jul 20, 2020)

@DnD Warlord If you have an extra $5, you might want to check out Into the Unknown: Book 1 Characters. It combines 5e with B/X rules, including race-as-class.









						Into the Unknown - Book 1: Characters - O5R Games | Into the Unknown | DriveThruRPG.com
					

Into the Unknown - Book 1: Characters - Into the Unknown is an Old School game that seeks to blend the Basic & Expert rules and style of play of the '80s




					www.drivethrurpg.com


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Jul 20, 2020)

I think the contemporary official settings run towards having worlds with substantial cosmopolitan components. Most of these worlds have great cities where it would be normal to find people of most any race filling most any role and which are cultural melting pots where it seems probable you can find a grizzled old elf willing to teach non-elves bladesinging, or a dwarf willing to teach outsiders his special dwarvish method of having stupid spikes on his armor. Unless there is a specific biological limitation I think racial classes or subclasses don't really jive with the cosmopolitan nature of the campaign fantasy worlds, because at least for the core races they are places where every weird races/class/background combo should be possible by means of some eccentric back story. 

If your setting is one with far less cultural commerce it may make more sense. For races dominated by isolationist cultures it may even make sense within an official campaign setting like the Forgotten Realms. But really it is only makes lore sense with extreme examples and I don't know what the benefit of a general restrictiveness is. Going beyond race restricted subclasses or classes to outright "you are this race and so this is your class" really only makes sense if you are trying to replicate the Spartans or some similarly extremely unusual and restrictive culture, and even then it seems like a blunt instrument to achieve the lore goal.


----------



## Eltab (Jul 20, 2020)

If you do race-as-class, beware of "job overlap".

I had one of those legendary Basic rules Magic-Users with 1 spell slot, 1 HP, Robe "armor" and a dagger.  After he died I created an Elf.  Because this way I could wield a damaging weapon and wear protective armor and still have the same amount of spells.

Elf = Magic-User + Fighter. Why take either of the Human classes?


----------



## Minigiant (Jul 20, 2020)

I was working on a Paragon base class that does this.

Each of the subclasses resembled the ideal warrior of various fantasy cultures

The Earth Incarnate would be stereotypical tough warrior with skin of stone (dwarf, golaith), metal (warforge), gem (gnome), or wood (other gnome)
The Arcane Incarnate would be the gishy warrior-mage for elves 
The Guile Incarnate was the tricksy warrior for halflings, goblins, changelings and other tricky folk
The Dragon Incarnate was a warrior who developed draconic features for dragonborn and kobold etc

Just couldn't figure out the delivery system


----------



## Orcslayer78 (Jul 20, 2020)

Marandahir said:


> That's not what the OP said.
> 
> DnD Warlord "wonder[ed] about going back to racial classes." I'm saying it's wrongheaded, even if just an option.
> 
> ...



Not a problem at all, but a good way to not play all races (yes, Races!) as humans with different shapes, making the game and the roleplay dull and plain.


----------



## cbwjm (Jul 20, 2020)

Racial classes I think have a place. A couple years ago I posted a racial genasi class that gain spell slots, elemental spells, and the ability to select a second subrace. The class was only 5 or 6 level and was just a way for a genasi player to gain more power from their elemental nature. 

Am elf class was similar to the BECMI elf class gaining magic and other abilities depending on the subrace, each subrace had different powers that built upon the race or the race history. Only 10 levels so they'd be expected to multiclass

I've also created racial subclasses. One was for dragonborn, a fighter subclass which made them a more draconic focused fighter, gaining additional breath weapon uses and enhancing their draconic traits.

Definitely a place for these type of classes/subclasses as they can enhance the otherness of the various races.


----------



## DnD Warlord (Jul 20, 2020)

Eltab said:


> If you do race-as-class, beware of "job overlap".
> 
> I had one of those legendary Basic rules Magic-Users with 1 spell slot, 1 HP, Robe "armor" and a dagger.  After he died I created an Elf.  Because this way I could wield a damaging weapon and wear protective armor and still have the same amount of spells.
> 
> Elf = Magic-User + Fighter. Why take either of the Human classes?



Yeah, that is a real fear. This system would need major playtesting


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 20, 2020)

jmartkdr2 said:


> The only way that would be categorically untrue is if there were no elf-specific tropes to build off of, but at that point why have races?




Or there was no race whose race-specific trope in fantasy was about their adaptability...

The thing about the "classic" races as classes is that they were all basically multiclass characters. and there's no reason anyone shouldn't be able to do that stuff.  If you were to tell me that because dwarves were magic resistant they couldn't easily wield magic directly, so they'd focused on artificing and runesmithing that would make sense. If you then told me that meant that 80-90% of runesmiths were dwarves it would work. But if you told me no one tried reverse engineering anything I wouldn't.

Unless a class is based around things that are only possible for a specific race it shouldn't be exclusive to that race.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 20, 2020)

Orcslayer78 said:


> Everyone should just play humans in different shapes? Pointy eared humans? short an bearded humans? scaly humans? demonic horned humans? gray skin humans? pointy eared coal skin humans?




So pretty much what people have always done?

"No, really, this is going to be a totally new concept. It's going to be this guy, rebelling against authority, and he's going to be all cool-like. But he's an elf, get it! Not a human. So that's different. Right? And he can dual-wield. Also, blackface?"

....too soon?


----------



## GreenTengu (Jul 20, 2020)

The idea of races as classes is just quite dumb. Although the races may vary from the standard human culture in certain ways, not every member of the society could possibly have the exact same skills, abilities and specializations and still survive as a society.

For the concept of a "racial class" to be relevant, you would first need to propose that there was such a thing as "The Human Class". Think that is too broad? About the "Canadian" class? What skills and abilities would the "Canadian" class have? Still too broad? Fine-- how about the "Manitobian" class? Or the "Winnipegian" class?

Just how small of a group of people do you think you could really assign a single class and still imagine them actually functioning as a working society and breeding pool of individuals?

And-- no-- assigning them all exactly the same class does not add realism by making them "different" from humans. Having no variety in an entire people who are supposedly running a functional, civilized society turns them completely cartoonish as it becomes impossible for them to realistically function in the world except in cooperation with the other races.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 20, 2020)

GreenTengu said:


> And-- no-- assigning them all exactly the same class does not add realism by making them "different" from humans. Having no variety in an entire people who are supposedly running a functional, civilized society turns them completely cartoonish as it becomes impossible for them to realistically function in the world except in cooperation with the other races




To the extent that D&D, and the D&D class system, accurately models the (or “a”) real world, you are correct.

To the extent it doesn’t, perhaps we shouldn’t worry too much about how the D&D class system “realistically functions.”


----------



## Orcslayer78 (Jul 20, 2020)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> So pretty much what people have always done?
> 
> "No, really, this is going to be a totally new concept. It's going to be this guy, rebelling against authority, and he's going to be all cool-like. But he's an elf, get it! Not a human. So that's different. Right? And he can dual-wield. Also, blackface?"
> 
> ....too soon?



probably your people can't roleplay, mine can


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 20, 2020)

Orcslayer78 said:


> probably your people can't roleplay, mine can




If by roleplaying, you mean that I once shopped at a Hot Topic.... then, maybe?


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Jul 20, 2020)

.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Jul 20, 2020)

I also disagree with this concept, and dislike the Bladesinger and Battlerager for reasons other then them not being great mechanics-wise, and that's because they're restricted by race. I think some (not all, or even most) Feats should be restricted by race, and class/subclass should always be open to any character race.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 20, 2020)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> And now we hear SJW's want to eliminate "race/racist" races, classes, etc.




*Mod Note:*

From the EN World terms and Rules:

_"...You MAY NOT use the terms "agenda", "ideology", "politics", or "propaganda" in relation to the inclusion of people slightly different to you in gaming products or other media, use pejorative terms such as "social justice warrior" or "virtue signalling" to dismiss the opinions of those you disagree with..."_

So, you're done in this thread.


----------



## DnD Warlord (Jul 20, 2020)

GreenTengu said:


> The idea of races as classes is just quite dumb. Although the races may vary from the standard human culture in certain ways, not every member of the society could possibly have the exact same skills, abilities and specializations and still survive as a society.
> 
> For the concept of a "racial class" to be relevant, you would first need to propose that there was such a thing as "The Human Class". Think that is too broad? About the "Canadian" class? What skills and abilities would the "Canadian" class have? Still too broad? Fine-- how about the "Manitobian" class? Or the "Winnipegian" class?
> 
> ...



Well off thetop of my head I would make humans feats into the class... so an extra skill, an extra feat, advantage on death saves


----------



## Xeviat (Jul 20, 2020)

I tried a thing in 3E where I built all NPCs with 1/4th their levels in their race's favored class. It did a lot to supporting themes.


----------



## EscherEnigma (Jul 20, 2020)

Assuming that we're talking about a theoretical D&D 6e that's less hostile to multi-classing...

"Racial classes" that are about a person of a certain race learning to better use their racial abilities?  So, for example, "dragon breath adept" for Dragonborn, that's all about mastering their breath weapon, or "doppleganger's apprentice" for a changeling that's learning to make the most of their natural gifts?

Sure, that might be interesting.

But "racial classes" that are about cultural/taught things (the noted bladesinger and battlerager, for example) shouldn't be race-locked.  You can put in the fluff that they come from such-and-such place/culture, and that they are normally taught only to such-and-such folks, but leave it up to the GM to decide if a dwarf can convince an elf to teach them bladesinging.

Don't write rules that enforce lore.


----------



## Gadget (Jul 21, 2020)

Though I may catch flack for it, I quite liked the old "Elf" and "Dwarf" classes from BECMI D&D.  Sure the implementation left a lot to be desired in some ways (mostly mechanical), but I've always seen the class system in D&D as representative of fantasy archetypes--rather than professions or detailed representations of whole societies.  In that respect, they could easily be seen as the type of character or hero found in a fantasy tale.  Now the idea and conception of fantasy has changed a lot since those days.


----------



## DnD Warlord (Jul 21, 2020)

Gadget said:


> Though I may catch flack for it, I quite liked the old "Elf" and "Dwarf" classes from BECMI D&D.  Sure the implementation left a lot to be desired in some ways (mostly mechanical), but I've always seen the class system in D&D as representative of fantasy archetypes--rather than professions or detailed representations of whole societies.  In that respect, they could easily be seen as the type of character or hero found in a fantasy tale.  Now the idea and conception of fantasy has changed a lot since those days.



I have been looking at them and can not belive Druid Knight has not been updated


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jul 21, 2020)

I left race-as-class behind when I graduated from Holmes basic to 1E AD&D and shed not a tear about it.  I have a negative amount of interest in seeing it return.  For those who like it for whatever reason, game and be happy.  But it's NOT for me as part of any version of D&D I care to play.


----------



## the Jester (Jul 21, 2020)

DnD Warlord said:


> Even if it was an option?  Again you could in this system play an elf that is basicly a human with dark vision and a ribbon with 1 less skill...and still take any class in the game, or you could take levels in elf and get Fey ancestry elven weapon training some spells and perception bonuses




That is so not how I want races to work. Instead of making them more human-like, I want them to be less human-like.


----------



## steeldragons (Nov 17, 2020)

I don't mind race-classes...but at least in my homebrew I don't make them mandatory. Non-human species (well, anyone, really) can be any/all "base classes": fighter, thief, cleric, mage. 

From there, there are some subclass options available to different species, and then at least one or two species-specific classes. e.g. Dwarves Fighters, certain Warrior subclasses, all Mystic classes (cleric, templar, druid, bard), most Rogue subclasses, and then have "Guardians": fighter-cleric multi-class, like if the Dwarven Defender and Paladins had a baby, "Dwarf-adin lite." That only dwarves can take. Elves have a similar list plus fighter-mage combo that is theirs alone, and a ranger-druid combo, Halflings have a fighter-thief "rangerish" specialty, etc...

I'm also not averse to species specific "paragon/prestige-type classes." Like, 3-5 levels (I think is enough) that can be taken to become an elfier-elf or dwarfier-dwarf...You trade out some of your class features for these special trait/features that other species can't be/get.


----------



## Weiley31 (Nov 18, 2020)

Didn't 3.5 have something where it was that they had Paragon race as classes or something like that?


----------



## Don Durito (Nov 18, 2020)

Weiley31 said:


> Didn't 3.5 have something where it was that they had Paragon race as classes or something like that?



Yes.  You could take a few levels in a race based prestige class.  An ok idea - but most of them weren't worth taking.

What would be interesting is to use the idea from 3.X era classes of spellcasting progression to slightly enfore the traditional idea of elven fighter-magic users and the like.


----------



## Tonguez (Nov 18, 2020)

Weiley31 said:


> Didn't 3.5 have something where it was that they had Paragon race as classes or something like that?





			Racial Paragon Classes :: d20srd.org
		


The Half-Dragon Paragon gave: 

LevelBase
Attack
BonusFort
SaveRef
SaveWill
SaveSpecial​1st​+1​+2​+0​+2​Sorcerous blood2nd​+2​+3​+0​+3​Natural armor increase3rd​+3​+3​+1​+3​Breath weapon 3/day


----------

