Halloween

Halloween
5% of All Sales go to Support The Tavern

Saturday, July 4, 2015

Race as Class or Racial Classes?

I was never big on Race as Class, probably because I started playing with AD&D and not B/X. It wasn't until I came across ACKS and it's racially themed classes that I saw the potential of Racial Classes. When I decided to do a release based on halfling racial classes for Swords & Wizardry, ACKS was certainly an inspiration.

I don't think racial classes are necessary but in the right campaign they can add depth.

Do you use race as class, racial classes, none of the above?

12 comments:

  1. Mostly I play race and class separate, but I do really enjoy the way ACKS does it as well. In my on again, off again campaign I had a few racial classes for each of the major regions and it really brought out the flavor of the world in a way that my players really enjoyed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. None of the above: choose your race and your skill set. Classes are a vestige best cut away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matt, how do you put that into use in your game?

      Delete
    2. Matt, how do you put that into use in your game?

      Delete
  3. I understand the appeal of skill selections vs classes, but classes are a great gaming option because it makes character creation easier for a lot of people because it narrows down the choices to a (normally) manageable level and you can easily get to the archetype you want.

    Personally...Im good either way, but race and class separate go over a lot better in my group, but I like fewer, but broader classes, usually just Fighter, Rogue, and Mage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure if you want "archetypes." Assuming there are any that didn't step out of the pages of D&D to begin with.

      Delete
    2. 1 of 2 things tend to happen with skill based systems (which are fine, by the way, not better or worse than class based);
      1) Players tend to gravitate towards playing a class anyways (I'm gonna take defensive skills, weapon skills, athletics, and maybe some natury skills, or I'm gonna be a sneaky, stabbing guy, or I'm gonna focus on spell casting), and just have a lot of numbers on their sheet to do the same things classes do.
      Or
      2) everybody just makes a jack of all trades type of character.

      There are bad class based systems. I think classes that too narrowly define what a class represents is a bad system.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Both are good. I also really liked racial substitution levels and racial paragon classes in 3e. They helped make the races feel really distinct while preserving the freedom players enjoy from keeping race and class separate, and without adding too much bloat

    ReplyDelete
  6. Erik, what S&W supplement did you pen?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Personally I feel that race-as-class is quite restrictive, especially with a wider variety of fantasy archetypes of dwarven priests and elven thieves among other things.

    Racial classes are a good step up, and I've enjoyed Barrel Rider Games' handling of it for Labyrinth Lord. But personally I think that making race as class separate is a good idea, even if it's the most radical approach for many OSR systems.

    I like how Scarlet Heroes incorporated race into its pseudo-skill background trait system. It made race less central, but still allowed for some iconic abilities to be options like halflings being sneaky regardless of whether they're clerics, fighters, magic-users, or thieves.

    ReplyDelete