Community

Race has been a less important decision by players than class through all editions. Except perhaps for basic where there was no distinction, and perhaps 4e where the inclusion of racial feats meant that the choice of the race remained somewhat important at levelling. Class really does define the type of character you want to play. Race, not so much hey. 

In the run up to 4e a wotc game designer said something that really got me thinking. He said something along the lines of being a dwarven fighter with an axe was a completely different play experence to being a human fighter with a long sword. I completely fell in love with that idea and while i dont think it exactly played out how i imagined it, im sure there are those who'll argue that races matter more now than they ever had and that much i can agree with. 

For 5e, the idea of a specific combo race+class giving something (consider it a 'class+race' bonus/perk/power) that remains relevant at any level (perhaps grows in power) and that is unique to that particular combination (elven rogues do their thing, yet elven rangers get their own thing, elven bards... You get the idea). This would help sell me on the idea that race mattered more than just the starter ability modifiers and generally passive racial features. Keep those by all means, race should do those things too - just sdd something interesting than halfling wizards do that halfling clerics don't. 

I dont know if this small germ of an idea has enough in it to make all the many varied combinations required - thematically and mechanically. It may be easy for the dwarven fighter, but harder for the genasi cleric. and worse when the supplements come out with all the weird and wonderful races, it may be too cumbersome and too gamist. Shrug. But for perhaps just the core classes and races it may be possible? 

What do you guys think? Would you like race to be more, or less important (or the same) in a players decision making process during character creation? Did any edition do it right? And lastly can you agree with the symptoms (races can be at worst irrelevant at best second-fiddle to class) even if you think the combo race+class idea isnt the right approach, and would lke to see some mechanic in making race more important nan it currently is?

May 2, 2012 -- 8:09PM, Salla wrote:

I would prefer race to be less important, myself.  I never had a problem with 'pick your race, here are your level 1 modifiers, move on'.  And while you can play a suboptimal race-class combo in 4e and get along just fine, I would rather the curve be flattened, so that the power differential between a race/class combo that does match up stats well, and one that doesn't, isn't so great that players feel compelled to seek out good race/class combos.

I do agree the race and fighting style match up might be better off if they were disconnectable. 

May 3, 2012 -- 1:48AM, Luis_Carlos wrote:

I can imagine a litle race PC (hafling or gnome) who isn´t rogue but ranger, warlock, shaman, bard, spellthief, factotum, monk or swashbuckler but...fighter or paladin with heavy armour? Don´t even think about it!!!

I liked actually playing a halfling paladin in 4E without jumping through hoops to be effective.

May 2, 2012 -- 8:24PM, Garthanos wrote:

May 2, 2012 -- 8:00PM, thorbardin wrote:

Race has been a less important decision by players than class through all editions. Except perhaps for basic where there was no distinction, and perhaps 4e where the inclusion of racial feats meant that the choice of the race remained somewhat important at levelling. Class really does define the type of character you want to play. Race, not so much hey. 
 

I like the choice of how important the race is to be a character specific choice...  Just as how important ones equipment is for a fighter 

I like race choice to be a little more important than weapon/spellschool choice. Like make race 20% of your character with the option for it to be more.

I always hated that for the most point elves with just skinny and frail humans and dwarves were short slow humans. If your DM or players didn't go out of the way to inject race into everything, race was just a stat bonus.

That is why there is a race/class combo mentalilty. Because adjustments were the only part important.

But if Gray Elf was more than a + Int boost and included a HP penalty, a free teleport at level 5, magic regardless of class, a massive melee damage penalty, and attack rerolls; it wouldn't be an automatic option for wizard. EVERY class should make a good wizard.

I kinda wished 4E races had 3-4 racial powers as they increased in level and classes granted fewer powers.

May 3, 2012 -- 2:22AM, Orzel wrote:

 

May 2, 2012 -- 8:24PM, Garthanos wrote:

May 2, 2012 -- 8:00PM, thorbardin wrote:

Race has been a less important decision by players than class through all editions. Except perhaps for basic where there was no distinction, and perhaps 4e where the inclusion of racial feats meant that the choice of the race remained somewhat important at levelling. Class really does define the type of character you want to play. Race, not so much hey. 
 

I like the choice of how important the race is to be a character specific choice...  Just as how important ones equipment is for a fighter 

I like race choice to be a little more important than weapon/spellschool choice. Like make race 20% of your character with the option for it to be more. 

That isnt the choice I was thinking about.. I am playing an Elric my relic is a dominant aspect of my character and a strong determinant of my very real potency on the battle field ... or I am playing a Beowulf or Lancelot and few people remember or realize I had magical weapons is a choice I want my character to have.

I want it to be potentially a grand thing or faded entirely in to the background?

Picture a theme... Fated Wielder of  [     Insert Relic here    ]