PDA

View Full Version : How many races/classes is too many for you?



Libertad
2013-09-12, 09:20 AM
Before you feel overwhelmed with options, particularly for a new RPG?

For me, it's 8 tops for both race and class. I can handle 3rd Edition simply due to years of familiarity, but if you handed something like it to me as a new player today I wouldn't know where to begin.

evil-frosty
2013-09-12, 09:27 AM
I don't think I really have a limit cause as a player or GM I would just limit what I looked at till I gained the familiarity. I've been playing dnd since I was 7 years old. I started playing 3.5 when I was about 12 I think, and instead of looking at everything it had to offer I went with a classic dwarf fighter something I knew and was already comfortable with.

Lorsa
2013-09-12, 09:43 AM
When they stop being unique or relevant or interesting then it is too many for me.

EDIT: Unique within the setting, I don't mind if there's been ten other races named "human" in ten other settings.

Yora
2013-09-12, 09:49 AM
I prefer to keep things to about 8 races and 8 classes for the game I run.

Fewer races make for more plausible settings where the races have several different cultures instead of having dozens of unique species that number only in a few tens of thousands.

And I want the players to look at the game through the eyes of people living in that world without spending much thoughts about mechanics, so I very much prefer to keep the mechanical aspect short and simple, with character classes being the primary source for these things.

Black Jester
2013-09-12, 09:53 AM
That can vary *very* widely. In a cultural exploraation game, where the players are a part of a larger setting with depth, a kitchen sink with dozens of different species feels wrong, but lots and lots of different cultures are really probable, so you have probably even more races and fewer at the same time. I usually prefer historical games where you have only one "race" in the D&D meaning, but hundreds and hundreds of cultures. All the diversity, none of the nonsensical doubling of ecological or narrative niches.
I don't like bland kitchen sinks (like Eberron or the Forgotten Realms have unfortunately become). I like depth, and inner logic, so a small number of biological different people with a large number of different cultures just make more sense.

When it comes to classes, the answer is much simpler: There are either no classes whatsoever or you have exact three: warriors, scouts and spellcasters, preferably each with smaller templates or specializations for more differentiation. But 'one is already too many' is probably more accurate.

The Rose Dragon
2013-09-12, 10:03 AM
Two classes is one too many. There are several systems, like True20 or Unsiystem, that are point-buy systems carefully disguised as class-based systems, that I consider to be exceptions, but as a rule, I'm not fond of class-based systems.

As for "races", depends on a lot of factors. The magic number seven, plus or minus two, is a good benchmark, assuming it's not a setting where everyone plays the same people, or a superhero-like setting where there are literally hundreds of species, and you get to create your own by buying the traits you think the people should have.

Black Jester
2013-09-12, 10:15 AM
Actually, most 1000s of species settings usually only have a handful, or even one - they are mostly all humans, only with the distinction of being humans who are green, humans who have bumpy forehead, humans who have fur... with this kind of overkill, there is no possible way to include any non-cosmetic, non-ability related distinctions or allow for a more than extremely superficial regard for anything related to customs or culture. At best, you get something silly as the Klingons (and I don't mean the fun Klingon fanboys who populate cons and have obviously fun dressing up. I mean the depressingly stereotypic one note excuses for characters who only occur in bad trek episodes).

Xelbiuj
2013-09-12, 10:36 AM
Whenever they start to feel redundant.
D&D Core plus a the few prestige classes seems about right.

As for races, I pretty much feel the same. You don't need aqua, jungle, arctic, etc . . .

SimonMoon6
2013-09-12, 11:49 AM
Talislanta.

Look at Talislanta.

It has dozens and dozens of playable races. In the main core rules.

*head explodes*

Gavran
2013-09-12, 12:00 PM
No such thing as too many, but the designers do need to make them all complete.

Wizard - hugely broad, it's fine to split it up.

Illusionist - acceptable.

Small Animal Illusionist - far too specific, this should be an Illusionist build option.

Similar with races.

Elves and Drow - Fine.

Elves, High Elves, Dark Elves, Wet Elves, Snow Elves, Deep Elves, Forest Elves, Plains Elves, Wild Elves [...] - Why aren't most of these being represented by different cultures?

Morgarion
2013-09-12, 12:04 PM
I've been meaning to start a thread to discuss this topic. I guess I'm 'old school', but I think that fewer base classes and races keep the game streamlined and easier to play, and therefore more fun as a result.

I wouldn't necessarily say that I feel overwhelmed by the variety of choices out there, but I just don't think they're necessary. I think that the core of eight to a dozen classes and half a dozen races provides us with the material we need to figure out how to do what we want with our characters. Given the proliferation of alternate class features and variants from newer editions, not everyone agrees with me, but I am decidedly of the opinion that the sheer number of options actually discourages creativity.

NichG
2013-09-12, 12:11 PM
I generally want something like 3x the expected number of players in classes, so that really there's no excuse for an overlap/two people playing the same thing.

As far as races, generally I want one, a small number (5ish), or 'too many to count', with nothing in between - basically each of those three options creates a different racial dynamic in the setting. One race basically avoids the issue.

A small number means you can reasonably write down the relationships between the various races without a combinatoric nightmare, associate each race with a geographic location in the world or nation, and go into detail about each race's origins and distinctions. Basically, with five races most people in the setting can go 'he's an elf' or 'she's a dwarf' and when someone doesn't fall into the five known races, its a big deal. So that can be leveraged for plot/etc.

With 'too many to count' then everyone's going to be exotic anyhow and no one will know more than a handful of people of any given race. So paradoxically, by having more races, they become less significant (while still allowing players to take advantage of the mechanical variation they introduce).

prufock
2013-09-12, 12:11 PM
I like to have a handful or less per region. Depending on which region you're in, there may be more, but those natively from outside the region are rare.

For example, in my Rose Lake setting, the kingdom of Ingol is mostly humans, halflings, and goblinoids; gnomes, elves, dwarves, orcs, and so on being rarely encountered. However, if you head northeast, you'll find elves in abundance along with a few wild races like centaurs and various fey. If you head north you'll find more dwarves. If you go to the islands you'll find gnomes. Go south and you'll encounter gnolls and other monstrous humanoids. Go west and you're in more orc territory.

While most races are made available to players, I always let them know what the common ones are in an area.

Honest Tiefling
2013-09-12, 03:02 PM
For races, I lean to more of the 'more the merrier' sort of attitude as I really enjoy playing weird and exotic things. I do respect limits GMs set up, but I like having viable non-humanish things around to play. But I also do not expect them everywhere, nor do they have to be movers and shakers in the plot however.

The region system proposed earlier works I think, to allow more races while keeping things simple at first.

As for classes, it really depends on how flexible the classes are. If they cover a lot of territory, then fewer can work. If not, you'll probably need several. I think I lean to more is better on this because even minor differences in classes can make or break the experience for people.

Trickquestion
2013-09-12, 03:26 PM
I'll take every last race and class and can find, mainly because I just love building up all kind of bizzare cultures and countries to act as (for the time being) background fluff. Still, I understand the problems that can arise from a huge number of races running around, and I've managed to sidestep it in my current campaign (the one I was requesting help for in an earlier thread.)

The country the PCs start in is an a kind of even handed tyranny. They're racially tolerant, but culturally supremacist. So anyone can live there, provided they follow the laws, sing the national songs and celebrate the right holidays. It let my players pick wildly different races during character creation, but still have. shared background.

Knaight
2013-09-12, 04:30 PM
General speaking, the existence of a class system is a big black mark on an RPG for me. Even one is too many, if it must be quantified. As for races species, I'd consider one (humans) to be plenty in most cases. Occasionally I'll go all the way to two in a setting, and very occasionally I'll use more of a kitchen-sink which has numerous, though this is usually only in space opera.

BWR
2013-09-12, 04:32 PM
Short answer: Depends on the setting and the system.

In a setting like Planescape I would allow most any race because the setting allows it.
In Legend of the Five Rings, you play human. In the games I've played/run we have had exactly one non-human PC, amd that was pushing it.

Classes or equivalent mechanics: I don't really have a hard limit. Really, it's a case by case basis for whether something is fine or not. So often there are new mechanics made not to expand the game in a meaningful way or fill a particular niche but just made for the purpose of making more crunch. Pointless, useless or overpowered. If I like it, ot's ok. If I don't, it's too much.

DeadMech
2013-09-12, 08:29 PM
I'll take as many of both as the DM is capable of juggling. Not that I don't appreciate the sentiment some people have that any class is too many classes. In the freeform or homebrew games I've played and run in the past every player character would tend to be unique to that game. In the setting maybe they were common, maybe they were an unlikely combination of events, sometimes they were snowflakes and genetic anomalies. In the end it never really mattered. Given time we would think of their personal plot arc and balance as needed.

Sure sometimes you run a world where everyone is X and sometimes that's something I want to play. The vast majority of the time unless there is a good reason to limit creativity I don't see a reason to do so. Even if my latest attempts of being creative is exploring tropes.

Ghost Nappa
2013-09-12, 08:46 PM
There's three basic combat roles: Frontliner, Backliner, and Team Support. Cookie if you guess which one is which.

From there, you can make hybrids. Someone who alternates between the frontlines and the backlines should be less sturdy than dedicated frontlinesmen and more sturdy than backlinesmen. This creates a gradiant of Survivability and range. From there you can mix in Low Damage, but excellent chance to hit; High Damage, but low chance to hit. You can throw in Single-Target attacks and AoE attacks.

There's a lot of different ways to hurt things, and there should be just as many ways to hurt them. And not a single one more.

Ideally, every single "class" or playstyle you create should be able to handle all three jobs with some proficiency. No, you don't want to give the Fighter high-artillery magic power. But you do want to give them the ability to somehow heal or help their teammates in combat in some way beyond killing something threatening them. This does NOT mean it needs to be as good as what a dedicated support teammate can do, but there should be some capacity.

Example: TF2. Scout's better off at picking off low Health enemies, but can support the team with enemy status debuffs like "Mad Milk" or marking them for death for Mini-crits. Soldier can buff teammates. Pyro can extinguish teammates on fire or remove sappers. Heavy has lunchbox items and Natasha. Engineer has Teleporters and dispensers. Team Support is the Medic's job. Sniper has Jarate. Of the 9 classes, 7 can debuff enemies, buff allies, or heal allies, or fulfill some combination of these tasks. But the way that they do their jobs and get kills for their team varies rather drastically.

DogbertLinc
2013-09-12, 08:48 PM
Whatever how many the Pokemon Tabletop RPG had. That really was way too many.

JoshuaZ
2013-09-12, 09:14 PM
Before you feel overwhelmed with options, particularly for a new RPG?

For me, it's 8 tops for both race and class. I can handle 3rd Edition simply due to years of familiarity, but if you handed something like it to me as a new player today I wouldn't know where to begin.


Having a lot of races and classes isn't really an issue for a new system. Pick a character idea and then look for a few things that support that.

It really depends on the context. I have more of an issue with many races from a narrative standpoint, where you have a dozen different versions of everything. This can make settings feel very kitchen-sinkish. Sometimes that's a good thing and sometimes it isn't. Something about such settings just feels off. So in the current campaign I'm DMing, the main species is humans, there are a few orcs, a few elves, and a smattering of halflings and that's by and large it with a few minor exceptions. But that was more for setting reasons than anything involving the system.

RustyArmor
2013-09-12, 11:33 PM
Classes I would like them to just go a Martial, Skill, Magical, Race branch type system and have a point system, traits, whatever you want to call them. Would stop a lot of the class by class comparison fights and debates.

As far as races go just make it so you can be any race and use the race branch for racial powers and the like, because you always see post about people wanting to be vampires, minotaurs, demons, dragons, animal people, and so on. Just making eight (or less) base races will not stop people from always asking to be these races then the DM trying to find a decent way to balance the race.

Lord Raziere
2013-09-12, 11:35 PM
don't really have an upper limit. I prefer infinity and all the endlessness that it implies.

Ashes
2013-09-13, 01:03 AM
I really, really dislike weird races. In D&D I like the core, and nothing else. My imagination and suspension of disbelief is strained otherwise, and party dynamics especially, are hard to pull off in a believable way.

Classes, I don't care about. It's not like they're a thing in-game, any way.

Morgarion
2013-09-13, 07:31 AM
don't really have an upper limit. I prefer infinity and all the endlessness entropy that it implies.

Fixed it for you.

Tiktik Ironclaw
2013-09-13, 02:22 PM
It doesn't matter to me, I usually just use the same five races (human, goblin, kobold, drow, hobgoblin) and whatever class I want to use.

But in my campaign I'm working on, the races are human, dwarf, drow, kobold, goblin, hobgoblin, bugbear, gnoll, lizardfolk, gnome, hobbit, swinetar(Homebrew), possibly ibixian, kenku, or armand, and orc or elf if you want to be evil. The classes are Assassin (Homebrew), Barbarian, Bard, Bounty Hunter, Cleric, Druid (Homebrew), Fighter (Homebrew), Paladin, Ranger (Homebrew), Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard, and Wizard Hunter.

ngilop
2013-09-13, 08:18 PM
with classes i don't really have a set max limit. im good with anywhere from teh basic 3 ( combat beast/skill monster/special ability guymandude) up to for instance 3rd ed 50+.

THough with rulebooks that have a lot of classes ( over 20 IMO) if there is not a paragraph describing what X class is about i usually pass on the game.

Races though.. I don't like more than perhaps a dozen. D&D s kabillion races is a bit too much for me, mostly due to the inevitable power creep that seems to happen to races, whilst classes tend to be more balanced as the game ages.

Lord Raziere
2013-09-13, 10:17 PM
Fixed it for you.

I hate entropy, how are you fixing it? you just made the world a dimmer place by implicitly assuming how you view things was better than mine, then you arrogantly assumed that you needed to fix it.

you are the worst of breakers.

Prince Raven
2013-09-13, 10:54 PM
I've yet to come across a system where I've thought "wow, there are way too many interesting and unique races/classes I could play as, I wish I was more limited in my character creation abilities".

Rakaydos
2013-09-14, 12:11 AM
It really depends on the system. One of the games I play, races basically boil down to "three feats you get for free, plus 3 skills that are favored by your race" which makes even races that arnt in the books easy to put together. "Carears" are the same way.

Vortalism
2013-09-14, 09:00 AM
I'm gonna have to jump on the bandwagon and go for 8 races, but with a ton of subraces because I prefer it that way :smallbiggrin:

As for classes, depends on the edition but for 3.5 anywhere between 15-22 classes is fine for me, pretty much most classes Core (with some fixing), ToB, Psionics, Some "Complete" series guys etc. As for prestige classes I keep that on a much tighter leash.

For 4E I keep it specifically to the Core classes, but add some Catlike and Lizardlike people, because I just can't get away from The Elder Scrolls; I love the 10 iconic races of TES even though most are just variations on "human". Also I tend to change up races a lot to suit my campaign settings or just cut off groups of classes entirely to fit needs, like the one setting I have that has no divine magic and only mages and other mages that cast from the cleric list vs psionics.

But truth be told there is no "best" number for anything in these situations it's all up to what you can handle as a DM.

Gemini Lupus
2013-09-14, 01:21 PM
For races with significant populations, I like to have ~8. For my current campaign setting, I have Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes/Halflings (I count them as the same race, but you can choose whether you want to be a Gnome or Halfling mechanically), Orcs, Goblins, Ogres, and Trolls as the dominant races. I really like what Pathfinder did with the Advanced Race guide, allowing for a large amount of customization for each race.

Other races exist in the setting, they just aren't in sufficient quantity to worry about. Most of their members will live on a single island/village/mountain/what have you and may only be known to scholars.

Classes, I can have more of, usually about 15-20, plus subclasses or archetypes like Pathfinder has.

Remmirath
2013-09-14, 04:55 PM
I don't really have an upper limit on species, but I do very much have an upper limit on subspecies. If there is a seperation between species and culture, all right, I'm fine with as many cultures as there are locations for them to exist in (and I do in fact prefer there to be a seperation between them, or at least to not have subspecies taking the place of cultures) -- but the whole dwarves, deep dwarves, snow dwarves, forest dwarves, what have you kind of thing gets to me. However, I figure that somewhere between four and eight base species is good. More are okay. Less are okay. I do have a preference against games where human is the only option, but that's about it.

As for classes, my preference is towards fewer rather than more. Fighter, mage/cleric (either seperate or just some sort of spellcaster), and thief are enough to me. I prefer to have strengths and weaknesses fairly highly customisable within the classes rather than have a class for every little thing. A few more classes than that are fine -- D&D or MERP's base number of classes are okay with me -- but I probably won't use all of them and I am highly unlikely to ever add more (although I won't stop others from using different ones if that's what they like, when I'm DMing). There hasn't yet been a completely classless system that I've enjoyed, but I believe that's due to other mechanics in those systems that I've played and not the lack of classes. I don't have a problem with not having a class.

Gettles
2013-09-14, 05:22 PM
I'm of the more=better mind set.

Maximumfinch
2013-09-14, 07:54 PM
The limit on races tends to be more a matter of why the player is choosing the race, and if a more basic race would fit the idea just as well. Things like Whisper Gnomes and LA +0 races that modify your type like Neraphim are usually prohibited by default. Other races tend to be limited by campaign with most sub-races being ruled out without a very good role-playing reason.

Classes tend to have fewer restrictions, but dipping is usually prohibited unless it's clearly part of the character concept. Dipping a level of Cleric or Crusader for a RKV build is fine, but dipping a level of Barbarian so you can put pounce on your Warblade is not. Usually, character concepts and goals are discussed before the campaign starts and these issues get hammered out. Cheesy PrCs are usually just banned outright, so no Incantatrix or Planar Shepard.

Forrestfire
2013-09-14, 09:36 PM
I'm of the opinion that the best way to build a character is to figure out a concept and find a way to make it work, so I like having tons of races and classes.

Want to play a mobile, mildly-versatile warrior? Warblade/Lion Totem Barbarian works wonders for that if they feel like playing it. Want to play a Gnome in an Iron Man suit? Warforged Warlock hits the mark there. Playing someone with knowledge about literally everything? Factotum x/Dragonfire Adept 1/Warlock 1 nets you tons of bonuses to knowledges and all of them as class skills, etc.

dps
2013-09-14, 09:46 PM
Ideally, if an RPG has classes, the way to handle things should be that campaigns start off with the PCs at level 1, and with just a few limited choice--basically the "classics" like fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue, maybe 2-4 more. Then as the characters level up, more choices would become available to them--for example, at a certain level, the fighter might choose to become a ranger.

Haarkla
2013-09-16, 11:46 AM
How many races/classes is too many for you?
Races: more than about 5 core races starts to feel too silly and "high fantasy" for my tastes.

Classes: much more than about 20 or 30 seems redundant.

originalginger
2013-09-16, 01:11 PM
In 4e, I use 10 races and 20 classes, chosen carefully from among all the available PHBs and Source Books for a nice variety without too much overlap while still covering all the roles and power sources.


Races
Human, Dwarf, Elf, Eladrin, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, Githzerai. and Tiefling. The others don't fit into my setting or are off limits to players, like Drow, Dragonborn, and Shifters which unambiguous bad guys, or Halfling and Gnomes which are tribal primitives.

Classes
Avenger, Barbarian, Bard, Battlemind, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Invoker, Monk, Paladin, Psion, Ranger, Rogue, Runepriest, Shaman, Sorcerer, Warden, Warlock, Warlord, Wizard.

Psyren
2013-09-16, 04:35 PM
MOAR. And a set for every subsystem/expansion too.

3.5 didn't go far enough. PF didn't go far enough. MOAR!

Rezby
2013-09-16, 07:25 PM
It depends entirely on the setting and feel of the game/campaign. A fun 3.5 game my friend ran had only humans and like 3-4 martial style homebrewish classes, and it worked, because it was a Stone Age campaign - magic was nigh-nonexistent, and non-humans were all monsters by fearful human villages and tribes. Another game he ran was more late renaissance/early modern era style, pirate campaign and it had basically the whole gamut of 3.5 races and classes - and every one had its niche in the world, because it was a well developed world and pirate crews are nothing if not motley. It worked, because its all about the setting and world.

I recommend actually reading Rich Burlew's (the Giant) articles about world building over there on the left. Go open the new world, part 3: races. It's a really good read (reading parts 1 and 2 gives context) about how races fit or don't fit into a world.

illyahr
2013-09-30, 03:52 PM
My 3.5 game is limited only by your backstory. I categorized each race and class into freely allowed, slightly restricted, and restricted. Playing one of the slightly/fully restricted ones requires a backstory that fits in with the theme of the setting.

For races:
Freely allowed: human, elf, dwarf, orc, goblin.
Slightly restricted: half-elf, halfling, gnome, half-orc, fiendish template
Restricted: anything else

Half-elves and half-orcs are restricted due to racism being promenant in my game. Halflings and gnomes are just rare. There is a small colony of devils living off by themselves (planar travel/communication is epic-level barred, so they can't go home) so half-fiends are not unheard of.

For classes:
Freely allowed: Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Wizard
Slightly restricted: Cleric, Druid, occasional other class
Restricted: Sorcerer, most other classes

Divine magic is difficult in my game (due to planar lock) so Clerics and Druids cast at -1 caster level but saves increase by 4 (no one practices defense against divine magic as it's so rare), Paladins and Rangers use the non-spellcasting variants. I just don't like Sorcerers. I feel they are too easy. :smalltongue:

There is one character who is an elven Duskblade, but she is a minor elven noble (balanced by said human/elven racism, makes RP difficult) and I decided it was only taught to elven nobility. We also have a dwarven Cleric who was kicked out of his clan for being a "heretic," a halfling Druid who fled into the wild after the devils wiped out his homeland to set up their colony, and a couple humans as a fighter and a rogue.

If you want exotic or esoteric, you gotta give me something good to work with. :smallbiggrin:

inexorabletruth
2013-09-30, 04:11 PM
The only system I've ever played was D&D 3.5, and I've been playing that since 2009.

When I was a new player, I preferred to keep all races and classes limited to PHB 1. I played a half-orc. Anything more would've been too much rule reading for a game.

By the time I was a DM, I was comfortable with players choosing any race/class combo from PHB 1 and 2, and some of the more "normal" monsters from MM1-MM4.

By now... it's pretty much all good. The only setting I'm still a little nervous about is Dragonlance, and always request the players ask for approval from them (mainly just so I can read about the race/class combo and see how they work). But Greyhawk, FR, and Eberron race/class combos make for a fun and dynamic mix. I'm even comfortable with non-canon half races like the dwalf, or elfling (thank you Bastards and Bloodlines for helping with the rules on making that possible).

For the most part, it depends on your group and how comfortable they are with build mechanics. I try to limit build options to cater to the newest member of the game. The newer he/she is, the closer to core we get. After all, plenty of fun can be had with a dwarven fighter, halfling rogue, elven wizard and human cleric. And keeping things streamlined for noobs protects them from being overwhelmed... making it more enticing to come back, which is a win for everyone if they become lifers. ^_^

Milo v3
2013-10-03, 02:58 AM
I think the system I'm currently making might suffer from too many classes; it only has 5 races but it has 27 standard classes, 5 supernatural classes, and 27 race restricted classes.

Soo.... Guessing 59 would be too many for you guys :smalltongue:

Irenaeus
2013-10-03, 07:12 AM
I tend to favor classless systems and settings which either has humans as the sole sapient species, or at least the only playable sapiet species. So... uh... two, I guess. Two is too many for me.

Milo v3
2013-10-03, 07:16 AM
I tend to favor classless systems and settings which either has humans as the sole sapient species, or at least the only playable sapiet species. So... uh... two, I guess. Two is too many for me.

What if there are no playable humans? Would you prefer to not play in such a setting?

Titanium Dragon
2013-10-03, 08:10 AM
The ideal number is dependent on system and setting.

Typically speaking, having more than a half dozen races or so is a mistake - if you are going into double digit numbers, you have far, far too many races. The reason for this is simple: for a race to matter, it needs to be more than an appearance. It needs to be a culture, it needs to have enough space for it to matter in some way. It doesn't matter what that "space" is, what matters ultimately is mindspace. The fewer races you have, the more coherent your world is and the more interesting each individual race becomes.

Class-wise, the question is really "how many distinct classes can the system deal with?" While the number of class choices can be overwhelming to new players, if the choices are properly laid out it is less of an issue, particularly if all characters are single classed.

For a class to be worth having, it must be distinct from all other classes and not overlap with them overly. This has to do with a variety of factors - powers, party role, and power source being the three big ones. The power source needs to be distinct, though - the power source should alter how the powers they have work.

A good example of this principle at work is 4th edition. There are four roles in the system - the defender, the controller, the striker, and the leader. Incidentally, these four roles are pretty universal - in theory there are five roles at most (defender, striker, controller, buffer, healer) but in practice you almost always end up with fewer. Many MMORPGs condense it down to the "holy trinity" - tank, striker, healer.

If you look at 4th edition classes, some of them are very well designed. Fighters, paladins, and spellblades are all quite distinct from each other in play, despite filling the same role. Likewise, clerics and warlords are very distinct from one another, and the bard still feels distinct, and therefore "worth having". Runepriests are alright as well, though they are starting to push it a little bit; still, you can feel the difference.

Strikers are not done quite as well; rangers and rogues are actually very similar in a lot of ways (both high mobility mixed-ranged characters who frequently focus on dexterity and strength, and both have abilities that aid mobility and stealth) and in a lot of ways, are far TOO similar - they probably shouldn't have been separate classes. Put a rogue and a ranger in the same party, they step on each others' toes even more so than any other pairing of strikers. Warlocks are distinct from rangers and rogues, but didn't really do enough damage to qualify as real strikers, which hurt their viability early on; they're really striker|controllers rather than striker/controllers. Sorcerers and monks both feel distinct from rangers and rogues, though, being more "pure" and focusing on different realms; likewise, the barbarian was differentiated in some ways, though they, too, might be a bit too similar to the ranger in some ways (though their overall toughness and more straightforward attitude - plus their dailies - do distinguish them more so than rogues).

Controllers were the worst role, though. Invokers, psions, and wizards are all incredibly similar, and as such should not have been three different classes. Yes, there are ostensible differences between them, but in practice they all behave extremely similarly in combat. Druids are much more distinctive. Seekers were just a terrible idea and managed to fail as both controllers and ranger rip-offs.

As such, I would say that 4th edition has too many classes - rogues, invokers, seekers, and psions are all redundant and could be eliminated (and should have been).

But really what determines your number of classes is the number of distinct things you can do with them. As long as a class is different from all the others, you're okay.

4th edition, for instance, has at least room for 12 classes with the primary/secondary role thing, and potentially more if you have a "pure" class for each role which doesn't even try to do anything else (the Ranger being an example of a "pure" striker) - you could say it has room for as much as 16 classes, and maybe a few more than that if you can come up with a distinct way of differentiating between two of the same role combination (for instance, making one character more ranged focused and one more melee focused, or single target vs multi target).

But your number of classes is informed by what they are used for in the system. In a team combat game like D&D, classes are important; in a game where there is focus on something else, your system should otherwise encourage teamwork. The purpose of classes, ultimately, is to encourage teamwork and to reduce redundancy and promote efficiency in roles.

Alternity, for instance, has four classes - five including the optional psionic class. You've got the combat spec, who is focused on combat but who has some other skills like vehicle operation, security, and demolitions, which can come in handy in various circumstances. You've got the diplomat, who is the "face" type character. You've got the tech op, the scientist, engineer, or technician, and you've got the free agent, the rogue/spy type (or counterspy, or investigator). Across your whole team, you had some level of redundancy, but mostly you had skills in a variety of areas so you could accomplish a variety of tasks. As the game was not combat-centric, the fact that one class was better at it than others was not problematic because combat wasn't supposed to be super-common, and the ultimate goal was to force diversity. A game like that could be completely classless, though, and I've seen games like that work just fine.

A combat orientated game, though, pretty much needs to have classes, because it needs roles to give everyone something to do. Yes, you can build these games in a classless manner, but the problem is that ultimately, what your players end up having to do is build their classes from scratch, which is a needless level of complication and makes things harder - MUCH harder - on newbies. The Secret World is an example of a classless MMO - there are no classes, but people end up assuming classes, fulfilling party roles - tank, DPS, healer - because that's how you have to function as a party. Conversely, Guild Wars has classes but no roles, and as a result combat completely sucks - you have no real teamwork and no real need of teamwork, you're just five guys who are wandering around together at best, and at worst there's just no reason to hang out with other people at all in many points in the game.

Ghost Nappa
2013-10-03, 10:08 AM
My biggest problem is actually with half-breeds. If two creatures are capable of mating and producing a child, they're the same species.

If you're going to be using random half-breeds (Aasimar + Halfling-Orc gives...what?), then you need to have rather explicit magical help to not have my biological bull**** detector on DEFCON-1.

This also means that if you make two races compatible, than anything that is compatible with either of the two races is compatible with both.

So for example, there's no reason for Elves and Drow to be unable to breed (barring magical intervention). Humans can breed with both, which means all three are "the same species." I'd also like a rather explicit explanation for why I can't have 1/16th Halfling 5/8ths Human 5/16ths Elf People. Half-breeds have sterility issues? Okay. But make that CLEAR when times comes around. Because given how intercompatbile humans are with most other races I find it weird that we have so many pure-blood humans and such.

Core should always be fine: Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, Halflings, Gnomes, Goblins, and Orcs. Don't make meaningless sub-races: they should meaningful decisions/attributes both mechanically and fluff-wise.

Prince Raven
2013-10-03, 11:09 AM
I chalk the fantasy biology down to a combination of racism and divine intervention. Also I lock my inner biologist in his room before getting involved in anything that might upset him.

NichG
2013-10-03, 11:39 AM
Well biology is full of exceptions, and 'biological rules' are often there to ease in human classification of things, not because the underlying biology actually obeys that rule stringently.

Mules, for example, are produced by breeding between different species with different chromosome counts, but do not imply that donkeys and horses are the same species (since mules themselves are mostly sterile). However, occasionally female mules are not sterile. Zebras can also produce hybrids with both horses and donkeys, Ligers also exist, though they have pretty bad problems. Buffalo and cattle produce a reliably fertile hybrid.

For plants, it seems that things are far easier and hybrids are much easier to produce.

So, biological explanation: elves are plants.

The Rose Dragon
2013-10-03, 12:01 PM
If you're going to be using random half-breeds (Aasimar + Halfling-Orc gives...what?), then you need to have rather explicit magical help to not have my biological bull**** detector on DEFCON-5.

So your detector is at the lowest alert level, then?

Ghost Nappa
2013-10-03, 12:23 PM
Well biology is full of exceptions, and 'biological rules' are often there to ease in human classification of things, not because the underlying biology actually obeys that rule stringently.

Mules, for example, are produced by breeding between different species with different chromosome counts, but do not imply that donkeys and horses are the same species (since mules themselves are mostly sterile). However, occasionally female mules are not sterile. Zebras can also produce hybrids with both horses and donkeys, Ligers also exist, though they have pretty bad problems. Buffalo and cattle produce a reliably fertile hybrid.

For plants, it seems that things are far easier and hybrids are much easier to produce.

So, biological explanation: elves are plants.

I did in fact mention the sterility issues of some combination. But while this SHOULD be a rather important mention in terms of inheritance and the like, I do not think it is explictly mentioned. It is implicit in the lack of having quarter-elves or half-halflings as race choices but there is no where that says:
Half-Elf:
Low-Light Vision: You can see in vaguely dim light.
Magic Elven Powers: You can find hidden doors because why not?
Sterile: You can't have kids because you're a hybrid kid.

THAT is my issue.


I chalk the fantasy biology down to a combination of racism and divine intervention. Also I lock my inner biologist in his room before getting involved in anything that might upset him.

Which while I can deal with, I'd rather have someone explictly say that a wizard did it. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AWizardDidIt) Pun unintended.


So your detector is at the lowest alert level, then?

My mistake. I can never remember which systems start from the high end or low end. It should have been DEFCON-1.

Example: Are first degree burns better or worse than third degree burns?

Who cares! It's non-magical fire, it only deals 1d6 points of damage. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0243.html)

NichG
2013-10-03, 12:58 PM
I did in fact mention the sterility issues of some combination. But while this SHOULD be a rather important mention in terms of inheritance and the like, I do not think it is explictly mentioned. It is implicit in the lack of having quarter-elves or half-halflings as race choices but there is no where that says:
Half-Elf:
Low-Light Vision: You can see in vaguely dim light.
Magic Elven Powers: You can find hidden doors because why not?
Sterile: You can't have kids because you're a hybrid kid.

THAT is my issue.


Not all hybrids are sterile though, and its often gender-dominated until some specific number of generations. For example, the newly created 'Savannah cat' breed is a crossbreed between servals and domesticated cats. For the first five generations from the initial serval parent, the males tend to be infertile, but after that they're fertile. Creating the breed as a stable thing requires alternating parentage between serval and cat in order to achieve the desired percentage.

But a serval and a cat are clearly different species - aside from any other considerations, they have a different chromosome count.

At some point it becomes less 'this doesn't make sense' and more 'this doesn't require mechanical adjudication because its potentially very complex and rarely if ever comes up in game'. You could in theory make F1, F2, F3, ..., BC1, BC2, etc classifications for half-elves, but is there really a mechanical effect at that point?

I'm not arguing that the designers of D&D thought through the biology, but I am saying that 'elves and humans can have kids but are different species' isn't actually all that unrealistic compared to, say, D&D economics or societies.

illyahr
2013-10-03, 02:02 PM
I'd imagine a sort of mutt race, a blend of multiple races who's bloodline is too diluted to have any special abilities but the potential to do anything. Oh, wait: human.

Humans can cross-breed with anything? Makes sense to me. :smallwink:

Angel Bob
2013-10-03, 02:09 PM
As a Fourth Edition player (shocking, I know), I'd say the best simplification of my stance would be: I was fine with the player races up until Player's Handbook 3. For those of you not counting:


Player's Handbook: dragonborn, dwarf, eladrin, elf, half-elf, halfling, human, tiefling
Player's Handbook 2: gnome, goliath, half-orc, shifter


The PH3 only introduced four more races, but that was four too many. (Plus, each was ridiculously exotic and difficult to incorporate into a campaign setting; githzerai aren't that bad, but minotaurs, shardminds, and wilden are just ridiculous as player characters.)

So in short, I kinda like the setup of races in the first two 4E handbooks, or for those of you who shun that edition with a passion, the current set of races in D&D Next. Not too many, not too few, not too fantastic, not too mundane.

Ghost Nappa
2013-10-04, 07:29 AM
Not all hybrids are sterile though, and its often gender-dominated until some specific number of generations. For example, the newly created 'Savannah cat' breed is a crossbreed between servals and domesticated cats. For the first five generations from the initial serval parent, the males tend to be infertile, but after that they're fertile. Creating the breed as a stable thing requires alternating parentage between serval and cat in order to achieve the desired percentage.

But a serval and a cat are clearly different species - aside from any other considerations, they have a different chromosome count.

At some point it becomes less 'this doesn't make sense' and more 'this doesn't require mechanical adjudication because its potentially very complex and rarely if ever comes up in game'. You could in theory make F1, F2, F3, ..., BC1, BC2, etc classifications for half-elves, but is there really a mechanical effect at that point?

I'm not arguing that the designers of D&D thought through the biology, but I am saying that 'elves and humans can have kids but are different species' isn't actually all that unrealistic compared to, say, D&D economics or societies.

The underlying problem with genetics and inheritance, is that it should raise the question: "If everything can breed with each other, why are there so few children of unmixed heritage?" From a realism standpoint, most races simple should not be able to breed together at all. We handwave it because fantasy but I'm still a bit confused how humans can have sex with a dragon and have a baby come out of it. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0842.html)

Are there cultural explanations? Sure! Maybe halflings and goblins CAN have kids together, but they hate each other so much it'll never happen. But that's not necessarily true between different campaigns, or even all individuals.

Are there biological explanations for why a biological process can't succeed? Well....apparently not.



I'd imagine a sort of mutt race, a blend of multiple races who's bloodline is too diluted to have any special abilities but the potential to do anything. Oh, wait: human.

Humans can cross-breed with anything? Makes sense to me. :smallwink:

Since when are humans supposed to be a "mutt race"? It was my understanding that humans in D&D are basically transplanted from real life to serve as a baseline for both game balance AND RPing. Humans in real life may be "mutts" culturally, but that is very much not necessarily the case nor it is often that they wind up causing physically different phenotypes like DARKVISION. I suppose you could say D&D is an exagerration of real life inheritance but I feel it is inconsistent in this regard.

To address this:
Humans can cross-breed with anything? Makes sense to me.

How far does that extend? Elves (Other Humanoids)? Dragons(Non-humanoid sentients)? Snails(Animals)? Blades of grass (Plants)? Chairs(Inanimate objects)? The air itself(Non-solids)? Imaginary Constructions (Non-existenct entities)? If humans can crossbreed with anything, why can't they crossbreed with everything? Is it even crossbreeding at that point?


But a serval and a cat are clearly different species - aside from any other considerations, they have a different chromosome count.

At some point it becomes less 'this doesn't make sense' and more 'this doesn't require mechanical adjudication because its potentially very complex and rarely if ever comes up in game'. You could in theory make F1, F2, F3, ..., BC1, BC2, etc classifications for half-elves, but is there really a mechanical effect at that point?

I can neither confirm nor deny your thoughts on the mating happens of the Savannah Cat, I am not familiar with them. However, the very fact that the first five generations of males suffer from Hybrid issues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_inviability) that they're not out of the woods as far as I'm concerned. You in a way, disproved one point while supporting another. Not to mention that most players are NOT going to spend time in a medieval-ish fantasy setting measuring the genetic fertility of hybrids.

That's why I want to know why one of the following two things hasn't happened:

1) An explanation for where all of the quarter-elves, three-quarter-elves, quarterlings....go and/or went in the SRD.
2)Blanket ban on hybrids from being able to successfully reproduce, or at least an Impossible CON check (DC 35).

BWR
2013-10-04, 07:59 AM
You guys are all overthinking this. There is a very easy explanation: magic.
We don't seem to mind how wizards create energy from nothing or how gods create everything from nothing, or clerics raising the dead or ftl travel in the form of teleports or how dragons can fly without magic.
Why is it so hard to assume that the fundemental laws of our imaginary, impossible worlds don't quite run on modern understanding of species and genetics? Just assume there is something about the innate essence of races that allow them to partially overwrite the essence of unborn members of other races - dragons mating with humans for instance. Or that there is something about certain a adaptable race that makes them good at being partially overwritten by a wide variety of other races.

There is also the matter of in-game magic.
2e had several spells for either altering a target to gain new abilities, for changing them to other species - 'genetic' changes so they could breed and transmit the changes across generations - and there were probably spells for allowing the mix of two different things to create halfbreeds.
End result? Owlbears, pegataurs and probably no end of stupid things in the various monster supplements.

johnbragg
2013-10-04, 08:19 AM
The underlying problem with genetics and inheritance, is that it should raise the question: "If everything can breed with each other, why are there so few children of unmixed heritage?"

Illyahr's idea that humans ARE the children of mixed, blended, pureed heritage would help you out here.

Or just consider that just because everything CAN breed with everything else, doesn't mean they WANT to. Let's handwave that you were interfertile with your house cat, the neighbor's dog, and the azalea bush outside. Barring some very heavy magical influence, I don't think you're going to act on that.

Build in that idea, and then carve out an exception that humans, goblinoids, dragons and fiends (and angels?) have a higher proclivity for "bestiality," and it's a go. So the human army sacks the elven village, you get half-elves. Dwarven army sacks the elven village, you just get dead elves.

None of that explains the lack of half-drow half-regular elf--they're subraces of the same species, they should be willing to sex each other, and the biology should be much more compatible than elf-human, orc-human, ogre-human, etc.


I'm still a bit confused how humans can have sex with a dragon and have a baby come out of it.[/URL]

I'm thinking that at the very least, polymorphing is involved. Or possibly a Demiplane of Platonic Bodiless Entities. i.e., "A wizard did it--all night long!"*

*"night" may have a different value in your local demiplane. Consult a sage with 20+ ranks in Knowledge--Planar for details


Are there cultural explanations? Sure! Maybe halflings and goblins CAN have kids together, but they hate each other so much it'll never happen. But that's not necessarily true between different campaigns, or even all individuals.

Or its rare enough that the books don't bother to stat it out--if a player and DM _want_ a half-halfling half-goblin, they'll cook up the stats for it.


Since when are humans supposed to be a "mutt race"?

That was a proposed understanding, that humans are not one of the primordial races from The Beginning when things were a little more chaotic and unsettled reality-wise, and stuff like Zeus turning into a swan and raping Leda was an ordinary day, but the outcome of a process of mating and blending the heritage of elvish, dwarvish, goblinoid, draconic, elemental, aasimarish, tieflingish, etc etc etc.


It was my understanding that humans in D&D are basically transplanted from real life to serve as a baseline for both game balance AND RPing.

Then you're going to have a harder time explaining all the part-human part-X crossbreeds than Illyahr is.



To address this:

How far does that extend? Elves (Other Humanoids)? Dragons(Non-humanoid sentients)? Snails(Animals)? Blades of grass (Plants)? Chairs(Inanimate objects)? The air itself(Non-solids)? Imaginary Constructions (Non-existenct entities)? If humans can crossbreed with anything, why can't they crossbreed with everything? Is it even crossbreeding at that point?

With all the templates out there at this point, I don't see any reason why not. WE long ago passed the point where I'd say "this is stupid." You want a Fiendish Undead Construct Dragonborn Half-Ogre Half-Fire Elemental Extinguisher? Fine, I don't care any more, just not in my campaign.

Although when the DM threw a half-fiendish shambling mound at us in a swamp it did make for a pretty cool fight.


Not to mention that most players are NOT going to spend time in a medieval-ish fantasy setting measuring the genetic fertility of hybrids.

Owlbears? Most of the Monster MAnuals? I've always assumed that "creation of new and dubious monster crossbreeds" was a major pastime in fantasy worlds. Sort of the PhD dissertation for wizard school.


That's why I want to know why one of the following two things hasn't happened:

1) An explanation for where all of the quarter-elves, three-quarter-elves, quarterlings....go and/or went in the SRD.

If I remember my 2E Monstrous Compendium entry on half-elves, the children of a half-elf are mechanically identical to the full-blooded parent. (Unless of course it's two half-elves, who will have half-elven children.) Quarter-elves may have pointy ears and frilly names, but that's just "fluff" and not "crunch", as I understand the hip kids say these days.

In 2E, orcs and goblins and hobgoblins were assumed to be crossbreeding rampantly. Orogs were an orc subrace "possibly mixed with ogre blood", from the Monstrous Compendium.

illyahr
2013-10-04, 09:55 AM
Creatures cross-breed with dragons usually because the dragon shapeshifts into another form. Due to magic, the "mechanics" of it are now possible. However, one of the parents is still a dragon and their genes get passed along the same as the other parent's.

There are such things as quarter-elves and the like, they just aren't referred to that by their respective parenteges. According to a lot of fluff that I have read, the child of a human and a half-elf is a human with a little elven blood in them. A child of an elf and a half-elf is a half-elf as the child is not full elf so it is not an elf. This comes from the respective races' views on breeding and racial pride (human blood overwhelms elven blood, so child is human, or child is tainted by human blood, so child is half-elf).

This works differently in different settings, but thats usually how it goes. For example: Elrond from Lord of the Rings is a half-elf who chose to endorse his elven nature. His brother, Elros, chose to live as a human and was Quickened. Elros met a human woman from Numenor (the westlands beyond the sea) and their line produced Elendil and Isuldor, Aragorn's ancestors. So Aragorn has elven blood in him, even though he is human.

Irenaeus
2013-10-05, 04:30 AM
What if there are no playable humans? Would you prefer to not play in such a setting?
Sorry for the late reply, but I forgot about this thread. It's highly dependent on how it's done, but speaking very generally, yes, I'd probabaly prefer to avoid such a setting, though I'd might prefer it to a garden-variety multi-race setting.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-05, 12:49 PM
It depends on how they are implemented. In theory, if both playable species and playable classes are sufficiently distinct, there could be a hundred of both and I wouldn't mind.

In practice, seven is a good number. Total, not each.

The problem for me generally is that the species or classes don't offer anything meaningfully different from each other. There is no point to have priest, cleric and adept as separate classes, or to have a general fighter class and swashbuckler, knight, duelist, samurai, guard, defender, warrior...

johnbragg
2013-10-05, 03:04 PM
It depends on how they are implemented. In theory, if both playable species and playable classes are sufficiently distinct, there could be a hundred of both and I wouldn't mind.

In practice, seven is a good number. Total, not each.

The problem for me generally is that the species or classes don't offer anything meaningfully different from each other. There is no point to have priest, cleric and adept as separate classes, or to have a general fighter class and swashbuckler, knight, duelist, samurai, guard, defender, warrior...

Exactly. Those should all be prestige classes, maybe ones you can get at 3rd level. But that doesn't sell as many splatbooks.....

Lord Raziere
2013-10-05, 03:51 PM
all the people who desire only 7-8 races is probably desiring only the archetypes and not the actual races themselves.

I think these are the race archetypes:

1. Versatile (mostly humans, half races)
2. Intelligent (Vulcans/elves)
3. Tough (dwarves, orcs, etc.)
4. Sneaky (halflings)
5. Outcast (drow, tieflings)
6. Spiritual
7. Social
8. Weird

ok, honestly I put "weird" on the last one because I couldn't come up with anything else, is it wrong?

the beauty of race archetypes however would be that, you could play as any race possible with them as long as they could be fit in, and you can even fit one race into multiple ones! a dwarf could be intelligent, tough or spiritual depending on what you want to focus!

of course there would be various little racial feat equivalents to customize them further, probably within that archetype...

NichG
2013-10-06, 12:34 AM
all the people who desire only 7-8 races is probably desiring only the archetypes and not the actual races themselves.


I don't think thats a safe generalization. In many cases, a DM might want there to be a small number of races because they want to exhaustively list the ways the races interact with one another. If there are elves, dwarves, and humans its easy to say 'dwarves think humans are gullible and easily misled, elves feel like parents towards humans, elves and dwarves hate eachother, and humans find elves mystical and dwarves profitable'.

If there's elves, dwarves, humans, thri-kreen, tieflings, gnomes, halflings, were-halflings, giant miniature space were-halflings, and quarterlings then enumerating the various racial interactions becomes combinatorically much harder very quickly.

Even if you were to do it, there's not enough mind-space at the table to make all of those interactions 'stick' in people's heads.

That said, the race archetype idea is a good one, it just isn't the only reason people want a small number of races.



I think these are the race archetypes:

1. Versatile (mostly humans, half races)
2. Intelligent (Vulcans/elves)
3. Tough (dwarves, orcs, etc.)
4. Sneaky (halflings)
5. Outcast (drow, tieflings)
6. Spiritual
7. Social
8. Weird

ok, honestly I put "weird" on the last one because I couldn't come up with anything else, is it wrong?

the beauty of race archetypes however would be that, you could play as any race possible with them as long as they could be fit in, and you can even fit one race into multiple ones! a dwarf could be intelligent, tough or spiritual depending on what you want to focus!

of course there would be various little racial feat equivalents to customize them further, probably within that archetype...

Well 'weird' makes sense, in the sense of 'alien' and the like. Races that are very far from what others in the setting expect sentient life to be like. You're playing a myconid - you're weird. You're playing an intelligent house cat - that's 'weird'.

I'm not sure I'd break it down this way exactly though. I think a given setting's conflict can set the tone for the racial archetypes. For example, in Arcanum you had a magic vs tech conflict, so the dwarves being technologists became an important point rather than them just being 'tough'.

Lord Raziere
2013-10-06, 12:50 AM
Well 'weird' makes sense, in the sense of 'alien' and the like. Races that are very far from what others in the setting expect sentient life to be like. You're playing a myconid - you're weird. You're playing an intelligent house cat - that's 'weird'.

I'm not sure I'd break it down this way exactly though. I think a given setting's conflict can set the tone for the racial archetypes. For example, in Arcanum you had a magic vs tech conflict, so the dwarves being technologists became an important point rather than them just being 'tough'.

ok, sorry about making that generalization. ok?

then the dwarves would be the intelligent archetype in such a case.

of course any race on the magic would probably be the intelligent archetype too. unless the magic is mystical and spiritual enough for it to merit the spiritual archetype.

Milo v3
2013-10-06, 12:53 AM
I think the generalization was pretty close though, especially since it's ridiculously close to an annoyingly common trope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FiveRaces).

NichG
2013-10-06, 01:30 AM
ok, sorry about making that generalization. ok?


Well I'm not offended or anything :smallsmile:



then the dwarves would be the intelligent archetype in such a case.

of course any race on the magic would probably be the intelligent archetype too. unless the magic is mystical and spiritual enough for it to merit the spiritual archetype.

Yeah, probably 'spiritual' is how it would be classified then, for contrast.

Ghost Nappa
2013-10-06, 09:16 AM
Illyahr's idea that humans ARE the children of mixed, blended, pureed heritage would help you out here.

Or just consider that just because everything CAN breed with everything else, doesn't mean they WANT to. Let's handwave that you were interfertile with your house cat, the neighbor's dog, and the azalea bush outside. Barring some very heavy magical influence, I don't think you're going to act on that.
Something I have already agreed upon.
Build in that idea, and then carve out an exception that humans, goblinoids, dragons and fiends (and angels?) have a higher proclivity for "bestiality," and it's a go. So the human army sacks the elven village, you get half-elves. Dwarven army sacks the elven village, you just get dead elves.
Believable. I'll take it.
None of that explains the lack of half-drow half-regular elf--they're subraces of the same species, they should be willing to sex each other, and the biology should be much more compatible than elf-human, orc-human, ogre-human, etc.

One of my issues re-stated.

I'm thinking that at the very least, polymorphing is involved. Or possibly a Demiplane of Platonic Bodiless Entities. i.e., "A wizard did it--all night long!"*

*"night" may have a different value in your local demiplane. Consult a sage with 20+ ranks in Knowledge--Planar for details



Or its rare enough that the books don't bother to stat it out--if a player and DM _want_ a half-halfling half-goblin, they'll cook up the stats for it.

I suppose. I still find it odd that we would create two major (read: Human) hybrid races in Half-Elves and Half-Orcs and then never touch on the idea again.

That was a proposed understanding, that humans are not one of the primordial races from The Beginning when things were a little more chaotic and unsettled reality-wise, and stuff like Zeus turning into a swan and raping Leda was an ordinary day, but the outcome of a process of mating and blending the heritage of elvish, dwarvish, goblinoid, draconic, elemental, aasimarish, tieflingish, etc etc etc.

Then why are they portrayed so often* as being that way? I can believe "humans as a racial melting pot" as mechanics and fluff...so long as the world doesn't treat them as a primordial race. Because when you have both the melting pot idea AND the primordial status, it creates issues that I can not suspend my disbelief from. Either they're a recent creation from generations of in-breeding or your below 50% blood of something is enough to make you mechanically different than that race.

Then you're going to have a harder time explaining all the part-human part-X crossbreeds than Illyahr is.


With all the templates out there at this point, I don't see any reason why not. WE long ago passed the point where I'd say "this is stupid." You want a Fiendish Undead Construct Dragonborn Half-Ogre Half-Fire Elemental Extinguisher? Fine, I don't care any more, just not in my campaign.

I don't want that guy either. nty.

Although when the DM threw a half-fiendish shambling mound at us in a swamp it did make for a pretty cool fight.

Heavily-Templated things are fun as enemies once in a while, but having to play or support one will be annoying in the long run because of LA.

Owlbears? Most of the Monster MAnuals? I've always assumed that "creation of new and dubious monster crossbreeds" was a major pastime in fantasy worlds. Sort of the PhD dissertation for wizard school.

"Owlbears" and other such creatures are either magically hybrided together, or are F1 creatures. Just because we can have two creatures together does not mean we can determine whether or not their child is capable of reproducing. The question is NOT the parents, but the child.

If I remember my 2E Monstrous Compendium entry on half-elves, the children of a half-elf are mechanically identical to the full-blooded parent. (Unless of course it's two half-elves, who will have half-elven children.) Quarter-elves may have pointy ears and frilly names, but that's just "fluff" and not "crunch", as I understand the hip kids say these days.

In 2E, orcs and goblins and hobgoblins were assumed to be crossbreeding rampantly. Orogs were an orc subrace "possibly mixed with ogre blood", from the Monstrous Compendium.

Never played 2E. But why is 25% of the blood of one race enough to make you mechanically different than that parent? It makes sense from a meta-perspective I suppose (anti-munchkin laws and such), but fluff-wise it seems odd. "My marginally pointy-ears don't actually do anything interesting other than point."


Creatures cross-breed with dragons usually because the dragon shapeshifts into another form. Due to magic, the "mechanics" of it are now possible. However, one of the parents is still a dragon and their genes get passed along the same as the other parent's.

That's a magical justification. I can live with that. I'm talking about matings and pairings where no such intervention is utilized. I'm taking about the half-dragon child's attempts to find a partner where they do not have magical assistance.

There are such things as quarter-elves and the like, they just aren't referred to that by their respective parenteges. According to a lot of fluff that I have read, the child of a human and a half-elf is a human with a little elven blood in them. A child of an elf and a half-elf is a half-elf as the child is not full elf so it is not an elf. This comes from the respective races' views on breeding and racial pride (human blood overwhelms elven blood, so child is human, or child is tainted by human blood, so child is half-elf).

Again, this makes sense from a meta-mechanics perspective, but it means that certain parent combinations do weird things with math and individuals. How many times do the children and descendants of a half-elf need to breed with elves before one of them is considered to mechanically be an elf?

This works differently in different settings, but thats usually how it goes. For example: Elrond from Lord of the Rings is a half-elf who chose to endorse his elven nature. His brother, Elros, chose to live as a human and was Quickened. Elros met a human woman from Numenor (the westlands beyond the sea) and their line produced Elendil and Isuldor, Aragorn's ancestors. So Aragorn has elven blood in him, even though he is human.

Bolded mine.

shadow_archmagi
2013-10-06, 09:20 AM
NO UPPER LIMIT

I will start with as many classes as exist. Once I gain more system mastery, I may restrict class choices for whatever reason ("I'd like to run a game where you're all persecuted arcanists, so almost everyone should be a spellcasting class.")

illyahr
2013-10-06, 11:48 AM
Bolded mine.

Dragons breeding with humans is impossible without magic as their reproductive traits are too different. Most of the common humanoids bear their young internally. Dragons lay eggs so it is physically impossible for them to mate.

The thing is, the only way for a monstrous race to breed with a standard race is through the use of magic, hence why it is so rare.

Prince Raven
2013-10-06, 11:55 AM
Dragons breeding with humans is impossible without magic as their reproductive traits are too different. Most of the common humanoids bear their young internally. Dragons lay eggs so it is physically impossible for them to mate.

Some species of snakes give semi-live birth, it's not unreasonable to think Dragons could.

illyahr
2013-10-06, 12:07 PM
Some species of snakes give semi-live birth, it's not unreasonable to think Dragons could.

True. The Draconomicon and Dragon Compendium give some details on the birthing practices of dragons, but it's ultimately up to the DM.

Weiser_Cain
2013-10-06, 09:25 PM
The sky's the limit, but if I have trouble keeping track, I'm going to want the characters to have an even harder time.

Broken Twin
2013-10-06, 09:43 PM
Well, given that I've taken to disliking class systems, I'd have to say zero in the class range. :smalltongue:

If I am playing in a class system, I'd prefer few classes with broad internal customization.

As to races, depends on the setting. My personal preference is no more then seven humanoid races. I'd prefer the number to be around three. I much prefer my differences between characters to be cultural and personal, not genetic.

Jay R
2013-10-07, 11:07 AM
My answers are rooted in fantasy literature.

Classes need to include fighters and wizards. Clerics and thieves are common enough. Beyond that, name me three characters from three different myths, legends, or stories who fit that archetype, and I'm good with it.

For a race, I want to know enough background to understand it. This includes:
Norse dwarves
Tolkien elves, dwarves, hobbits, and orcs
Narnian dwarves, talking animals, or marsh-wiggles
Prydain Fair Folk
Satyrs, fauns, centaurs, or other classical races
leprechauns, brownies, fairies or other Wee Folk
Quadlings, Winkies, Munchkins, or Gillikins
or pretty much any race that is well-defined in literature before 1974 (i.e., before the influence of role-playing games)

I'm not very interested in any races defined by and for D&D rules, such as modern kobolds, gnomes, tieflings, Drow, or Kender.

In my current game, there are no modern kobolds, but I may introduce proper German ones as invisible sprites in the mines.

[And someday I'm going to stat up the Crumple-Horned Snorkack.]

russdm
2013-10-07, 09:36 PM
I try to limit it mainly because there is no way hundreds of races, of which have numerous individuals, can survive in the small areas usually selected for them to inhabit in most fantasy. Unless magic is being used to replace all the resources that get consumed, the races would end up with a world that has nothing more to give and cannot sustain its population levels anymore. This of course is ignored by the game and most fantasy.

I have no problems with classes since i just limit them to first party(WotC) books for use. Not all prestige classes are available and not all base classes but there should be some availablility.

My main beef with a lot of races beyond resources is how they are able to acquire and use them. Every race needs the resources so you will have huge amounts of competition based on how many races you keep adding in. Add in all the animals, vermin, and other stuff, and the question appears: How are all these races surviving with so many other races around? Magic doesn't work as an answer.

Sam113097
2013-10-07, 10:23 PM
I think it's a really fine line between variety and giving races depth. I don't like having one-culture races, so I prefer just a few main races with multiple cultures for each race.

As for classes, they're usually all acceptable unless they don't fit the setting (Such as having an artificer in a campaign based on Ancient Greece, or a barbarian in a steampunk setting)

russdm
2013-10-07, 10:27 PM
I think it's a really fine line between variety and giving races depth. I don't like having one-culture races, so I prefer just a few main races with multiple cultures for each race.

As for classes, they're usually all acceptable unless they don't fit the setting (Such as having an artificer in a campaign based on Ancient Greece, or a barbarian in a steampunk setting)

Or an Elven Monk? Cookie for the reference...

Knaight
2013-10-07, 11:32 PM
Sorry for the late reply, but I forgot about this thread. It's highly dependent on how it's done, but speaking very generally, yes, I'd probabaly prefer to avoid such a setting, though I'd might prefer it to a garden-variety multi-race setting.

Out of curiosity, does something way off improve the odds of you going with it? I'm thinking of something along the lines of Bunnies and Burrows*, Mouse Guard, or something where everyone plays an AI - as I've seen plenty of cases (and am one) where that will be fine, whereas a setting where you have elves, dwarves, halflings, and no humans is just annoying.

*Basically Watership Down in game form

Irenaeus
2013-10-08, 06:19 AM
Out of curiosity, does something way off improve the odds of you going with it? I'm thinking of something along the lines of Bunnies and Burrows*, Mouse Guard, or something where everyone plays an AI - as I've seen plenty of cases (and am one) where that will be fine, whereas a setting where you have elves, dwarves, halflings, and no humans is just annoying.

*Basically Watership Down in game form
Speaking very generally, it would probably improve it. It removes one of my reservations against races, namely that it's often a very convenient substitute for a more developed character personality. Come to think of it, some of my more enjoyable fantasy RPG experiences has been with a single-race party. I've also had fun playing e.g. Nephilim in the past.

There is also strictly speaking playable races in Transhuman Space, some of which I enjoy a lot. I mind this less, for some reason. Probably because they as human derivates are relatable and part of the same cultures, as well as interesting when it comes to debates about the boundaries of humanity.

I'm not fundamentally opposed to races in rpgs, in any way. But if it's all the same to everybody else I'm playing with, I'll chose the setting without elves and dwarves.

Btw: I still have nightmares from watching the animated Watership Down when I was five, so anything with bunnies is right out.

illyahr
2013-10-08, 09:51 AM
Btw: I still have nightmares from watching the animated Watership Down when I was five, so anything with bunnies is right out.

Store owners who put Watership Down in the child's section simply because it's a cartoon with rabbits need to be punched in the kidney. This movie has been rated PG-13 and is not suitable for those under the age of 13. Parental guidance is advised. :smallbiggrin:

Irenaeus
2013-10-08, 10:31 AM
Store owners who put Watership Down in the child's section simply because it's a cartoon with rabbits need to be punched in the kidney. This movie has been rated PG-13 and is not suitable for those under the age of 13. Parental guidance is advised. :smallbiggrin:
Agreed. The same goes for people who wrote TV guides way back when, and thought "cartoon with bunnies" was a sufficient description for parents.

Liver kick. No statute of limitations.

Talya
2013-10-08, 11:53 AM
As many options as possible, thank you.

They should all be flavorful and have a reason to be there, but I see no reason to limit races or classes beyond that. I prefer the kitchen sink approach.


Btw: I still have nightmares from watching the animated Watership Down when I was five, so anything with bunnies is right out.

Bunnies aren't just cute as everybody supposes.
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses.
And what's with all the carrots?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway?

Irenaeus
2013-10-08, 01:20 PM
Bunnies aren't just cute as everybody supposes.
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses.
And what's with all the carrots?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway?
All good points. Plus all the non-consensual sex, and the soulless, staring eyes.

lunar2
2013-10-08, 06:47 PM
in the setting i'm working on, there are 6 standard races that make up 2 distinct species (big humans and little humans), and just 8 base classes (4 limited list casters, a fighter, an wilderness expert, a rogue, and a beast master). i deliberately tried to keep things simple and streamlined, and have the classes each be as unique as possible.