Poll: Do you think any race should be able to be any class?

[Mckeown]

Yes. Absolutely yes. My first group had an Elven barbarian and none of us were bothered by that; we thought it was cool. What I will say is that the class has to match the character; we wouldn't have accepted that elf had she been really prissy or bookish the rest of the time.

Also, there has to be an in-character reason for why they have that class. My group is fairly easygoing so there's never any trouble with things like dwarf wizards, so long as they can tell us when they learned that class.

One thing I will say is, for any area which might be considered a point of contention within the group, talk to your GM. If he/she's any kind of decent as a GM then, unless there's an in-universe reason why that cannot exist (our first campaign had no orcs/half-orcs allowed for the players because all the orcs had been genetically modified into being Warhammer orcs by the big bad and my first campaign had no elves/half-elves due to them not existing, but in these cases the GM should tell you before you make your character), then they'll work with you to figure out a way that that would work.

 

[Adaephon]

No, because some racial characteristics would make certain classes impractical or impossible.

You couldn't have a Ogre Rogue or Thief, a 10' tall 2000lb mountain of muscle who was light on his feet and adept at climbing up trellises, squeezing though the smallest of windows who could daintily pick someone's pocket with fingers as big as you thigh and somehow sneak up on people (despite blocking out the sun and making the ground tremble) and deliver a backstab with a 'dagger' larger that the target.

Could you have an Ent/Treeant Fire Mage? Seems a bit risky to me. What about an Orc attempting to be a class that is a beguiling temptress or witty rogue that can talk or seduce their way out of situations? Seems highly amusing, but unlikely.

In my (now finished) D&D 3.5 campaign I played a 7' 2," 250lb half-orc rogue and I justified it quite simply: he was basically a street thug. I couldn't be especially sneaky, no, but I could very easily stab people in the side and then rob them blind. He was great at climbing because he had good muscle mass and endurance (think Andre the giant climbing that cliff in the Princess Bride) and he was great at slight-of-hand tricks because he wore huge baggy clothes and knew how to distract people while slipping their belongings into his various folds and pockets. He also had pulled the other standard thief duties of knowing how to open chests, disarm traps, tumble, jump, use ropes, and have plenty of local knowledge because those are hardly racially specific qualities, but he was excellent at gathering knowledge because he was so scary looking (well that and the fact that I rolled basically straight 18s for every stat but I prefer to think in-game-wise). So yeah, I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect that any race could pull off any class provided you put a little thought into it.

A good DM knows how to tweak the game to ensure that nothing too silly or unrealistic can happen (unless that is the whole idea of their game of course) so they would obviously make it so that a weird race-character combo wouldn't be allowed to cheat logic or be radically outclassed.

 

[Something Amyss]

Depends on how the system is set up and what kind of classes. If there's a goblin class that is based around certain goblin abilities, then it's reasonable to at the very least require some way to emulate those abilities, if not to restrict it entirely. Otherwise? It may be sub-optimal, but hey.

 

[Saltyk]

That sort of depends on the context. If you play as a race that has no magical ability whatsoever as a trait (a part of the lore), then playing as a mage doesn't really make sense. For the most part, I can't really see it mattering. Some games might give racial bonuses that might make it easier or more difficult to be certain classes, but overall it shouldn't matter as long as it works with the context of the world.

 

[Mister K]

I voted no, but only because of lore reasons. What I mean is that if, for example, in some universe a playable race of humanoid vegetables can't use fire magic because of the lore of this universe, then your PC probably shouldn't be a special snowflake.

But if there are no lore limitations, then please do allow me to create whichever character I like, but add a few pros and cons for each class/race combination.

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

As long as the person is willing to do the work in the role play, and the DM doesn't mind adjusting the world to accommodate the oddity of a warrior gnome (or whatever), I don't see a problem with it. As with all things, it comes down to the individuals involved, their personal tastes, and what the group is willing to do with their game and world. There is no definitive right and wrong on this one, just what works for a group.

Once during a game we started with one of those pre-fab quests (Dragonlance I think, or maybe Forgotten Realms...I forget) that came in a box, and ended up in a high fantasy arc of craziness that included hidden relics, time travel, and digging out other books from outside D&D to accommodate lasers and cyborgs. It was a fantastic RP.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Depends, is there any rule against it in the game (ie, some races can't cast magic and would be unable to be a mage).

Really, I'm not sure what exactly it is you're really asking, people can have any rules they want in an RPG. You could have a rule that every character has to wear a purple shirt at all times, and they must be named after pieces of furniture.

There's really nothing stopping you from playing the game anyway you want, unless you're asking that there be some kind of secret police that kick in your door and drag you off to the department of tabletop RPGs for violating their global rules.
So the answer is really the boring old, it depends.
If the people playing the game decide the answer is no, then the answer is no!
If the people playing the game decide the answer is yes, then the answer is yes!

 

[Sentay]

So I suppose at this point I should offer some context. I've been making a Table Top RPG from scratch and originally I was going to have 4 classes per race with each class being tailored to that race. But a lot of people who I talked with expressed interest in playing non-standard race class combinations. Now most of these combinations made sense BUT I think it'd probably be easier to make this an all or nothing kinda deal (so I don't have to make a complex set of rules for a very small selection), and to keep the universe consistent.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

So I suppose at this point I should offer some context. I've been making a Table Top RPG from scratch and originally I was going to have 4 classes per race with each class being tailored to that race. But a lot of people who I talked with expressed interest in playing non-standard race class combinations. Now most of these combinations made sense BUT I think it'd probably be easier to make this an all or nothing kinda deal (so I don't have to make a complex set of rules for a very small selection), and to keep the universe consistent.

You could have a list of recommended classes for each race which mesh particularly well with their standard race traits, but have each class open to all races, or at least most. Any bonuses to stats derived from the class should be percent based rather than a straight buff, that way their effect will be greater or smaller depending on what race the character is.

Like if say you wanted to have a gnome warrior and the warrior gave strength bonuses those strength bonuses wouldn't make the gnome as powerful as say an orc, since the gnome race would have a lot less strength and therefore the bonuses would have a smaller effect.

I think that's an easy way to make certain races favor certain classes, but still keep things from getting exclusionary if someone wants to make a non-standard character, and it would prevent non-standard characters from somehow becoming overpowered if the class bonuses are properly balanced. Hell, if you're worried about people making over powered characters you could even force a stat deduction during character creation for "non recommended" classes based on the race.

 

[Gray-Philosophy]

I'd say it depends on the type of class system you're going with. But then again, what are classes really, other than titles?

Different races have different physical capabilities, but anyone can practice what they want. If you're a stocky dwarf but want to be a nimble assassin, sure you can go for it, but don't expect to be very succesful at being nimble. Cause you're a fecking dwarf.

If you're a fragile fleet footed elf who wants to be an armoured tank, have at it! but don't expect to last very long against someone tougher than yourself.

 

[Comic Sans]

Accidental double post while editing.

 

[Comic Sans]

I say let people do what they want. A big part of RPGs is taking a fun character concept and making it your own. Sure, there are obvious perks to picking matching race/class combinations. The half orc will probably be bigger and stronger than the gnome. But if they are willing to take the penalty, let them do as they please. That's how the great tabletop stories are made. As a DM one of the last things one should do is stifle player creativity.

I'd say it depends on the type of class system you're going with. But then again, what are classes really, other than titles?

Different races have different physical capabilities, but anyone can practice what they want. If you're a stocky dwarf but want to be a nimble assassin, sure you can go for it, but don't expect to be very succesful at being nimble. Cause you're a fecking dwarf.

If you're a fragile fleet footed elf who wants to be an armoured tank, have at it! but don't expect to last very long against someone tougher than yourself.

See, who says you have to play a stereotypical dwarf or elf in the first place? There's no reason a dwarf has to be exceptionally stocky. If a dwarf grew up in a slum on the surface, had to fend for himself by stealing for food and money, it's perfectly viable that he could be quick on his feet. And a warrior elf could be one who dedicated himself to the craft of martial combat. He practiced a lot, exercised, bulked up. Hence being able to use heavy weapons and armor. People have varying shapes and builds depending on how they grew up and what they do, why can the other races not? Almost anything can be justified if you put some thought into it. I myself had a tengu rogue in Pathfinder who had higher strength than dexterity (though both were really high). Why? Because he was more of a street tough, not a pickpocket. He was a street smart mercenary who took dirty jobs that often required roughing people up, but took a little finesse. So he could pick locks and climb walls and such, and was fairly acrobatic. However he was an absolutely beastly fighter in straight combat. He didn't do the stereotypical pick pocketing and little stealth. If he wanted to take something from someone, he walked up to them and took it by force. It was a different way to play rogue than others were used to and it was a lot of fun. Don't be constrained to racial stereotypes. There are generally already racial and class bonuses that clearly match up better than others. If they wanna do something odd and can justify it with backstory, let them.

 

[Recusant]

So far I'm seeing two dominate opinions:
1 - Any race should be able to be any class BUT they should perform said class in a way that makes sense for their race (tweak all classes to fit each possible permutation).
2 - No, some classes should be off limits for some races BUT only when they are completely incompatible (orc thieves).

Think this through from a world-building perspective. Assuming you have societies that developed in (even relative) isolation, they're going to be pretty racially homogenous, at least at first. While you could have a society that has no warriors, the need for skilled combatants still exists. I suppose you could have another race taken as battle slaves (Orcish Jannisaries!), or relies exclusively on mercenaries hired semipermanently, but that poses some obvious problems in setting it up, if you divide it along racial lines. How did the gnomes deal with wild beasts coming to steal their crops/children before they found and hired the orcs?

Additionally, having no orc thieves is just plain silly. A standing army requires an active support structure, and can reasonably be restricted. One can easily be an independent operator as a thief. Even in a relatively lawless, rule-by-might society, you're going to have thieves- in fact, it'd be more likely there, as the weaker still need to survive somehow. The only way a society could work without thieves would be if it were some sort of communist hive-mind. Theft via stealth arises from those for whom theft via strength is impossible- if you demand the sultan's gold, his guards will kill you. If you sneak in and take it while they're not looking, however...

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well if your players get pissy then just let them have whatever, but that sort of random combinations without rhyme or reason are just really dull.
If you want to do something cool then have special classes for each faction that fit their lore.

 

[Angelous Wang]

Lore dependent I say.

For example in Dragon Age you can't have a Dwarf Mage, because Dwarfs are resitant to magic.

So having a Dwarf Mage should be a big no.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Of course. In fact, strange or unusual race/class combinations are a large part of keeping tabletop RPGs fresh. If every party always consists of an elven mage, dwarven fighter, human cleric and a halfling rogue then things get very tedious very quickly. Not to mention horribly min-maxed.

 

[william12123]

As an avid Pathfinder player (a game that does allow any race to be any class, save a few race-specific prestige classes & class archetypes that use specific race power (like the halfling opportunist using halfling luck racial power, or the drow cavern sniper who uses drow-specific magical powers)), the whole thing works well. While no class is technically forbidden, the mechanical requirements of the game make certain combos... unlikely. For example, elves get +2 intelligence, +2 dexterity & -2 constitution (on their stats), which is GREAT to play a wizard (who's powers are based off int), but disadvantageous for barbarians (who's power go off con).

But most concepts are still viable, if not optimal. For example, a dwarven wizard, while at a slight disadvantage (it get no int bonus), can get special bonuses to craft magic items faster.

In any case, I support full class openness unless the class relies on a specific racial ability. This has been the source of some discussion on the pathfinder forums, as several race-specific class archetypes are more "fluff" limited, (like the Kobold Trapper, the dwarven foehammer (basically a hammer dwarf), and many more). I'm fairly permissive while I gm, so it isnt much of an issue in the games I run.

 

[Barbas]

Oh man. I saw this thread's title come up in the little box on the right of the page. Thank goodness this is in Gaming Discussion, hahahaha! XD

OT: I agree with Dirty Hipsters [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.865521.21625132] and James Stone [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.865521.21625249]. I like the idea of well-written characters who break some of the usual conventions but for compelling reasons. Innovation and creativity should be encouraged and if we stick to the same old rigid system we risk stagnation.