SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Atypyical race-class combos

Started by jhkim, January 27, 2021, 05:11:26 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jhkim

This was touched on in the recent thread on race - but that was much more focused on politics around the calls. This is about having half-orc wizards, or halfling rangers, or gnome monks, and so forth. I can think of a few different approaches:

(A) In Basic D&D, there isn't a separate choice of race or class. Each race (except human) is its own class. (EDITED: removed OD&D, which has restricted combinations)

(B) In AD&D 1st edition, race and class are picked separately -- but many race/class combinations were banned. You couldn't play an elven cleric PC, because that combination wasn't allowed in the level limit chart. Other combinations were allowed but heavily discouraged by level limits, while a few were allowed unlimited.

(C) In D&D 3rd and later, those limits were dispensed with. However, because of ability score modifiers, some combinations result in less effective characters on average. Unless the GM rules it doesn't fit the setting, I can choose to play a half-orc wizard, but my PC is notably less powerful -- though a half-orc paladin works just fine.

(D) Other games don't have the equivalent. For example, in Fantasy HERO (4th) and I think in GURPS (4th), race doesn't change effectiveness much. So if I play a half-orc wizard, I still get my points worth of abilities. A GM can discourage some combinations as not fitting the setting ("I'd prefer you didn't play that"), but if a player does make such a character with GM permission, they're just as effective as other PCs.


Do people have a preference about this? Personally, I definitely preferred (C) to (A) and (B). However, as I think it, I am coming around that (D) makes more sense. Outside of race/class combinations, I've generally felt that using *power* to balance *unusualness* is a poor bargain, because it yields inconsistent results depending on the mindset of the player. Frequently, I'll see a party where half the players are power-gamers with optimized and boring characters, and the other half are experimenters/role-players trying out quirky options who all get overshadowed.

My preferred way to deal with unusualness is on a social level - especially by having a session zero where we come up with who the PCs are as a group, to avoid both too much unusualness overall, and also unlikely matchings of characters (i.e. paladin and assassin).

Stephen Tannhauser

Like you, I am definitely more on the "D" front myself, and I agree that trying to make sure a party fits together by concept before character creation begins can avoid a lot of problems. I've come to see more value in classes as a game design element, as a fairly decent method of niche protection, but I was always the guy who wanted to tweak everything and I much prefer flexibility.

Purely to note the other side, though, there can often be a lot of fun, novelty and amusement factor in playing out how highly incompatible PCs actually interact and establish, despite themselves, cooperative working relationships. Whether a particular group seems likely to pull this off is entirely a case-by-case assessment, I think.

And one of the advantages to the race-class combo, as noted in the previous thread, is the basic advantage of all templates: it's a shortcut of character creation for those without the time or inclination to do the kind of point-by-point allocation systems like GURPS and HERO often require.
Better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. -- Mark Twain

STR 8 DEX 10 CON 10 INT 11 WIS 6 CHA 3

ShieldWife

I basically have a type C history with RPG's, but I am starting to think it might be flawed in some regard. If you don't want to play an orc wizard, then I guess the -2 Int and +2 Str (or whatever we are using in the system or edition) doesn't matter to you. Though if you do choose to play that kind of character, should you be penalized by having your over all character power reduced? The answer that keeps coming back to me is "no" you shouldn't be penalized.

I actually had the same thought about sex based attribute adjustments. I'm not offended by the desire to give male characters +2 Strength, it would in fact be more realistic, but I would prefer not because it such a rule change encourages and discourages certain player choices. If females get +2 Cha and males +2 Str, then it punishes players who want to make male bards or sorcerers and players who want to make female fighters or barbarians. If someone wants a character that goes against type - like a female barbarian, or wizard, or whatever (regardless of how politicized it is or isn't) then why penalize them for that choice?

So, when it comes to removing racial modifiers, I can see a good argument. Not because I want to be politically correct or anything, but because I think that it would be better for players who player characters that break stereotypes not to be punished for doing so mechanically. Of course, people will say that they can still make the character and a few penalties here or there aren't the end of the world. This is kind of true, but being a wizard with a -2 Int when there is another wizard out there with a +2 Int is going to reduce enthusiasm somewhat and will effect many people's choices.

So, how would I do things? I guess it depends on the system. For just a point buy character creation method, you don't have to do anything. Just put your points where you want breaking or conforming to stereotypes as you desire. For a stricter sort of character creation system, like D&D, I could imagine that each race could have a set of bonuses and penalties and then you could choose the ones that you feel are appropriate to your character concept.

Orcs may be dumber than humans on average, but the orc IQ bell curve doesn't have to determine the abilities of your particular orc PC. Men are in fact stronger than women in real life, but those strength bell curves don't have to determine the physical abilities of your female barbarian.

Chris24601

I pretty much built my game system around a variant of D.

Specifically, I designed the classes with enough flexibility that every race/species/origin can be good at fighting or spellcasting in some fashion.

For example, the fighter includes options for a Strong, Swift and Berserker fighting style that each favors one of the physical attributes and a combat focus of Daring, Tactical or Wary that favors one of the mental attributes. So while a Gnome is unlikely to a Strong fighter, they could certainly be a swift one and a Giant wouldn't be that great as a Swift fighter, they would do well with the Strong or Berserker styles.

Similarly, spellcasting has classes; Gadgeteer, Mystic, Theurge and Wizard that each favor a particular mental attribute, but all of these have access to spellcasting paths of Abjurer, Benedictor, Empowered, Interdictor, Maledictor and Summoner. So an Elf is most likely to favor Theurgy while an Eldritch will more often favor Mystic, which makes some differences to how they cast (what implements they use, what non-combat options they can take), but both can still can use any of the common paths of magical effects.

Wicked Woodpecker of West

QuoteDo people have a preference about this? Personally, I definitely preferred (C) to (A) and (B). However, as I think it, I am coming around that (D) makes more sense. Outside of race/class combinations, I've generally felt that using *power* to balance *unusualness* is a poor bargain, because it yields inconsistent results depending on the mindset of the player. Frequently, I'll see a party where half the players are power-gamers with optimized and boring characters, and the other half are experimenters/role-players trying out quirky options who all get overshadowed.

If I have a fantasy races like different species I want differences between them to be more than social. Otherwise I can play just with varieties of man.
Answer for powergamers - pick a race / roll in order / choose class that's viable based on results. That's for a start.

Besides overall my opinion is racial bonuses and penalties in D&D are not that much. I mean in best case Half-Orc vs. Halfling Figher randomly rolled differs by +2 to roll in D&D 3.5
That can matter sure, but it's hardly enough to make halfling unplayable, or crippled. (Only with unusual races that gets over +4/-4 modifiers that's really changes in weird way.)

QuoteIf you don't want to play an orc wizard, then I guess the -2 Int and +2 Str (or whatever we are using in the system or edition) doesn't matter to you. Though if you do choose to play that kind of character, should you be penalized by having your over all character power reduced? The answer that keeps coming back to me is "no" you shouldn't be penalized.

Why not? You play someone who by blood and natural potential is worse wizard than elf. Still can be very good wizard - those penalties are not that big for lord's sake.
You wanna see big differences - take Warhammer, where men use 2d10+20 for most of primary attributes, while elves have almost all 2d10+3- or 2d10+40.
I honestly as someone running D&D 3,5 cannot concieve how one can see those miniscule +2/-2 bonuses/penalties as in any way crippling for race/class combinations.
Especially when class power creep quickly becomes way more prominent over inherent attributes.
Oh look your female barbarian has +24/+19/+14 to strike, oh how crippled she is compared to male counterpart who thanks to +2 to Strength is now +25/+20/+15.
Oh, shame, oh humanity.

QuoteNot because I want to be politically correct or anything, but because I think that it would be better for players who player characters that break stereotypes not to be punished for doing so mechanically.

If you play dwarven wizard you play against stereotype, yet you are not punished. If you play halfling priest, you play against stereotype yet you are not punished. Damn gnomes get +2 Charisma in 3,5 but I cannot see they are archetypical bards and sorcerers... at least they were not till Scalan.


Steven Mitchell

#5
For me, there are two related questions which drives what I want in the game: 

A. How much setting do I want embedded in the class/race/etc. options? 
B. What do I need to do if I want to change the embedded setting?

For example, take the B/X elf class.  They are all magic users that can fight.  If as the GM I want a different elf class for the setting, I need to make a new class.  My personal objection to "race as class" (as opposed to any design advantages/disadvantages for the broader audience) is "I don't want all my elves to be magic users that can fight, and I don't want to write a new class every time my setting preference conflict with the mechanics."  Not because writing a new class is difficult in B/X.  It's very easy.  I just don't enjoy it.  I even less want to write a new class to help some player realizes their idea in the setting, but that's as much about the negotiation between player and GM as the work. 

This aspect, in fact, is what made me enjoy Fantasy Hero and GURPS so much.  However, I soon discovered that I didn't like that extreme, either--almost no setting embedded into the mechanics except for a few things that don't work very well so that people avoid them or perhaps in GURPS picking your default on how magic works.   This makes communication of the setting to the players more difficult unless you've got some common idea that you can use as short-hand (e.g. Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser with spell casters).  I frequently don't, because many of the players don't read that much fantasy fiction and I don't watch much film.  I don't want to negotiate setting with the player every time they make a character any more than I want to write their character for them.

I rather like combinations that are allowed but don't necessarily work all that well.  It's a lot better than having a few combinations that are clearly better than everything else.  Any game is likely to have at least one or the other.  If an orc wizard is allowed but discouraged, that says something about the world. If 8 Str fighters are allowed but discouraged, likewise.  If all the "discouraged" options narrow the list down to the point where most of the casual players can pick from the 5, 10, 15 options that are most common and useful, that also says something about the setting.  But then, I like random character generation, not having very many oddballs, and players that can even pick up a random pregen and have fun with it.  Of course, there is something to be said for the game not cluttering itself up with bad options.

I do think it is very useful for the designers and writers of the game to have clear in their minds when restrictions are for mechanical reasons versus when restrictions are for the implied setting.  And then communicate that in the game.  Is there a mechanical reason why most elves that use magic are wizards instead of druids?  Or was that just a setting element that got thrown in there?  It makes a difference when I go to ignore the default setting and substitute my own.  Or it would if the designers and writers were clear in their own minds.


Finally, I have an extremely strong aesthetic preference for designs that use multiple combinations of short lists instead of long lists--provided that the short lists are designed to work well together instead of kludged off of past traditions or older lists.  You could say it this way:  All else being equal, I'd prefer human, elf, dwarf combined any old way with fighter, m/u, cleric.  But if half the combinations don't work, I'd rather have race as class and drop the pretense. 

Pat

I don't have a strong preference.

But I think C and D tend to lead to over-optimization. When you can mix race and class at will, or when you can pick individual abilities freely, there are always more and less optimal choices. Since there's a lot of pressure to pick the better choice, that effectively limits character options. Often, in practice, this limits options more severely than in A or B, even though, technically, you can pick anything you want.

A is an interesting choice, for several reasons. One, it's different. Aside from Basic D&D, there aren't a lot of examples. So it has novelty going for it. It also doesn't pretend all races are the same, underneath. Dwarves might literally be incapable of magic, for instance. Too many modern games treat races humans with pointy ears or stumpy legs, not as something fundamentally different or alien. I really like the idea that elves and dwarves are not humans, and race as class helps enforce that. And not just by limiting what options are available, but by customizing each class. Having a halfling race and then mixing it with thief and fighter classes seems pretty generic, because you're just slapping the same racial characteristics on the same classes. But with race as class, there's the opportunity to make each unique. A halfling sheriff and a halfling burglar might have unique skills, and express their halflingness in different ways. Of course the main problem is there aren't a lot of examples. The standard races in Basic D&D are just one class per race, which is a good way to establish a starting archetype, but quite limiting. The GAZ series added some new ones like dwarven priests or halfling wardens, but those were both iffy and only a start. So the idea's interesting, but running with it is a lot more work.

jhkim

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 27, 2021, 06:13:00 PM
Quote from: ShieldWife on January 27, 2021, 05:30:35 PM
If you don't want to play an orc wizard, then I guess the -2 Int and +2 Str (or whatever we are using in the system or edition) doesn't matter to you. Though if you do choose to play that kind of character, should you be penalized by having your over all character power reduced? The answer that keeps coming back to me is "no" you shouldn't be penalized.

Why not? You play someone who by blood and natural potential is worse wizard than elf. Still can be very good wizard - those penalties are not that big for lord's sake.
You wanna see big differences - take Warhammer, where men use 2d10+20 for most of primary attributes, while elves have almost all 2d10+3- or 2d10+40.
I honestly as someone running D&D 3,5 cannot concieve how one can see those miniscule +2/-2 bonuses/penalties as in any way crippling for race/class combinations.

No one in this thread is claiming that it is "crippling" -- the issue is whether it is penalized, and whether it should be penalized. If the +2/-2 modifiers aren't that big a deal, then the converse is what's the big deal about dispensing with them?

The argument about blood and natural potential doesn't seem to hold up, because *except* for race, these things don't affect game balance. Realistically, it would be much harder for an outlander or a street urchin to become a wizard than someone born into a noble or educated class. For example, let's say I want as my character background "My character is a human street orphan who applied to be in the wizard academy. He was tested and rejected three times for not having the aptitude. But he worked hard and eventually got in." Should this character also be less effective, because he's going against type?

The question is whether an unusual background like this means that the player should have a less effective character.

Philotomy Jurament

Quote from: jhkim on January 27, 2021, 05:11:26 PM
(A) In OD&D and Basic D&D, there isn't a separate choice of race or class. Each race (except human) is its own class.

That's true of B/X and BECMI, but only sorta true for original D&D. In original D&D without the supplements there aren't separate dwarf, elf, or hobbit classes, it's just that dwarves and hobbits are "limited to the fighting-man class" and elves "begin as either fighting-men or magic-users and freely switch class whenever they choose..." So there's still a sort of class/race separation of concepts (although in practice it's very similar to "race is a class").

Once original D&D's Supplement I was released , the separation became even more clear. The thief class was added, with dwarves, elves, hobbits, and half-elves all being allowed the thief class. "Normal" multiclassing was also added at this time, with things like elven F/MU/T or dwarf F/T. And this was carried on into AD&D 1e, of course.

QuoteDo people have a preference about this?

For D&D, I much prefer (B), as it is in AD&D or original D&D + supplements. I like a strong class/level approach in D&D, and I don't consider classes to be laws that govern how the world works: they're just useful game structures for managing PCs and their advancement. So my game world freely includes things demihuman priests (even if they aren't governed by the rules of the cleric class) and so on. The class/level rules are mainly for PCs, in my game.
The problem is not that power corrupts, but that the corruptible are irresistibly drawn to the pursuit of power. Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.

jhkim

Quote from: Pat on January 27, 2021, 06:40:00 PM
But I think C and D tend to lead to over-optimization. When you can mix race and class at will, or when you can pick individual abilities freely, there are always more and less optimal choices. Since there's a lot of pressure to pick the better choice, that effectively limits character options. Often, in practice, this limits options more severely than in A or B, even though, technically, you can pick anything you want.

Sorry - I realize in retrospect that it was not well-described, but my intent with option (D) was that it was covering cases where there was *not* this optimization of race. A player that chooses a half-orc wizard will be roughly as effective as a gnome wizard, rather than being weaker. That was my experience with Fantasy HERO, for example, where an 20 Intelligence character costs the same regardless of whether they are gnome or human - and in any case, stats have a weaker effect than in D&D. In D&D, I would think this could be accomplished by having attributes all generated by the same method, rather than differing based on race.


Quote from: Pat on January 27, 2021, 06:40:00 PM
(Regarding option A) A halfling sheriff and a halfling burglar might have unique skills, and express their halflingness in different ways. Of course the main problem is there aren't a lot of examples. The standard races in Basic D&D are just one class per race, which is a good way to establish a starting archetype, but quite limiting. The GAZ series added some new ones like dwarven priests or halfling wardens, but those were both iffy and only a start. So the idea's interesting, but running with it is a lot more work.

I think in practice, creating a full set of different classes for each race is giving up the flexibility of the race + class check-in. Many games trying to cover a range have just opted to go with a point system and possibly templates, like D6 and Shadowrun.

Pat

Quote from: jhkim on January 27, 2021, 07:22:24 PM
Quote from: Pat on January 27, 2021, 06:40:00 PM
But I think C and D tend to lead to over-optimization. When you can mix race and class at will, or when you can pick individual abilities freely, there are always more and less optimal choices. Since there's a lot of pressure to pick the better choice, that effectively limits character options. Often, in practice, this limits options more severely than in A or B, even though, technically, you can pick anything you want.

Sorry - I realize in retrospect that it was not well-described, but my intent with option (D) was that it was covering cases where there was *not* this optimization of race. A player that chooses a half-orc wizard will be roughly as effective as a gnome wizard, rather than being weaker. That was my experience with Fantasy HERO, for example, where an 20 Intelligence character costs the same regardless of whether they are gnome or human - and in any case, stats have a weaker effect than in D&D. In D&D, I would think this could be accomplished by having attributes all generated by the same method, rather than differing based on race.
Doesn't matter. It's still optimization, and leads to the same effects. If a 20 Intelligence character is the optimal choice for a wizard, then all wizards will tend to have I 20. Plus some additional weirdness, because if everything always costs the same in a point buy system, there's not much difference between races.

Quote from: jhkim on January 27, 2021, 07:22:24 PM
Quote from: Pat on January 27, 2021, 06:40:00 PM
(Regarding option A) A halfling sheriff and a halfling burglar might have unique skills, and express their halflingness in different ways. Of course the main problem is there aren't a lot of examples. The standard races in Basic D&D are just one class per race, which is a good way to establish a starting archetype, but quite limiting. The GAZ series added some new ones like dwarven priests or halfling wardens, but those were both iffy and only a start. So the idea's interesting, but running with it is a lot more work.

I think in practice, creating a full set of different classes for each race is giving up the flexibility of the race + class check-in. Many games trying to cover a range have just opted to go with a point system and possibly templates, like D6 and Shadowrun.
The flexibility comes with a certain same-sameiness. It's a trade off between that, and the work needed to add additional flavor by creating a unique halfling sheriff and a unique halfling burglar, instead of overlaying a standard racial template on fighter or thief.

Tyndale

Hi John.  Mark here.  And maybe this a better space to talk about this than on FB :P

Despite my defense of older systems, and further assuming we have not chosen to play such older systems, I would have to say D.  While I may want to control what racial backgrounds are available as a GM for the setting/campaign, the playing field should be equitable in terms of character creation.
-The world grew old and the Dwarves failed and the days of Durin's race were ended.

Wicked Woodpecker of West

QuoteIf the +2/-2 modifiers aren't that big a deal, then the converse is what's the big deal about dispensing with them?

Primo, to select over-optimisers and destroy them in fire. Second, to make not too big, but visible distinction between average members of different species, that will have some meaning in game.


QuoteThe argument about blood and natural potential doesn't seem to hold up, because *except* for race, these things don't affect game balance. Realistically, it would be much harder for an outlander or a street urchin to become a wizard than someone born into a noble or educated class. For example, let's say I want as my character background "My character is a human street orphan who applied to be in the wizard academy. He was tested and rejected three times for not having the aptitude. But he worked hard and eventually got in." Should this character also be less effective, because he's going against type?

Look I would most preferably order players to roll their race and social background, adjust both nature and nurture scores and then order them to pick a proper class for their rolls. So yes I'm all for social class adjustment. ADD IT.

QuoteThe question is whether an unusual background like this means that the player should have a less effective character.

what can I say privilege is real :P

jhkim

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 27, 2021, 07:47:53 PM
Quote from: jhkimThe argument about blood and natural potential doesn't seem to hold up, because *except* for race, these things don't affect game balance. Realistically, it would be much harder for an outlander or a street urchin to become a wizard than someone born into a noble or educated class. For example, let's say I want as my character background "My character is a human street orphan who applied to be in the wizard academy. He was tested and rejected three times for not having the aptitude. But he worked hard and eventually got in." Should this character also be less effective, because he's going against type?

Look I would most preferably order players to roll their race and social background, adjust both nature and nurture scores and then order them to pick a proper class for their rolls. So yes I'm all for social class adjustment. ADD IT.

If it's what you like - you should add it. As I understand your preference, you want to simulate generating a random member of the population - so roll randomly for race, gender, and social background - and then have those modify attribute rolls (which are done in order with no re-arranging of rolls). That's how Harnmaster worked, and there were a few times when I generated characters that way in the old Harnmaster campaigns that I played in. (Actually, I generated three random characters this way and picked one of the three.)

What's your experience like doing this in actual campaigns? In my experience, it's vanishingly rare for players to roll for race and gender and social background, and most players strongly prefer to choose. Even in Harnmaster, it seemed like rarely-used optional rules to roll for those, and other games don't even have them as an option.


Quote from: Tyndale on January 27, 2021, 07:32:06 PM
Hi John.  Mark here.  And maybe this a better space to talk about this than on FB :P

Despite my defense of older systems, and further assuming we have not chosen to play such older systems, I would have to say D.  While I may want to control what racial backgrounds are available as a GM for the setting/campaign, the playing field should be equitable in terms of character creation.

Hey, Mark! (Mark played in some of the old Harn campaigns with me - though I think you joined only after we switched to Burning Wheel, right?) Yeah, that's where I'm coming to. Of course, all character creation is equitable among *players* since everyone uses the same rules and has the same opportunity. But I don't see the point of penalizing unusual race/class combos in power.

If as GM, you don't want those combos, then just disallow them. But allowing them but having the PC be weaker doesn't really solve anything. When players *do* exercise that option, no one is any happier.

TJS

Honestly.  I think a lot of the issues are to do with this whole idea of building a special character to play and the idea that the whole game should revolve around the special character.

It doesn't really matter so much in B/X if you can't play a Dwarf Thief, because if you rolled 5 for Dex then a thief was out of the question anyway.

Or in Warhammer you might be able to play a high elf, but you almost certainly won't.