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

[Thalamus]

Well, no.
Even if you ignore the rules, there are still some logical issues with certain combinations.
e.g Gnomish Archer.

What exactly would stop a gnome from using a bow? I mean, he'd have to have a specially made bow for his size, and such a small bow would have reduced range, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a useable bow. Hell, you can give a gnome a compound bow and say that it was made by dwarves and it would be really easy to draw back and while retaining decent power and range.

Something like this would be suited to a gnome archer:

Spoiler

Well, I don't think there were any compound bows back then.
A small recurve bow's string would need a MASSIVE amount of force to be pulled, no Gnome is that strong.
And even if they did have compound bows, an archer needs to be tall (not being racist here!) to properly use a bow, A short archer would always need to lean back and aim up, which wouldn't allow the Gnome archer to Draw the string back far enough.
this plus the arrow's angle hugely affects the bow's lethality. It wouldn't be deadly at all.
So, yeah, no Gnomish archers.
(Don't.Even.Mention.Crossbows)

 

[Oroboros]

Well, no.
Even if you ignore the rules, there are still some logical issues with certain combinations.
e.g Gnomish Archer.

What exactly would stop a gnome from using a bow? I mean, he'd have to have a specially made bow for his size, and such a small bow would have reduced range, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a useable bow. Hell, you can give a gnome a compound bow and say that it was made by dwarves and it would be really easy to draw back and while retaining decent power and range.

Something like this would be suited to a gnome archer:

Spoiler

Well, I don't think there were any compound bows back then.
A small recurve bow's string would need a MASSIVE amount of force to be pulled, no Gnome is that strong.
And even if they did have compound bows, an archer needs to be tall (not being racist here!) to properly use a bow, A short archer would always need to lean back and aim up, which wouldn't allow the Gnome archer to Draw the string back far enough.
this plus the arrow's angle hugely affects the bow's lethality. It wouldn't be deadly at all.
So, yeah, no Gnomish archers.
(Don't.Even.Mention.Crossbows)

Well, many eastern bows are noticeably smaller than the English longbow while being of comparative or greater strength. in D&D terms that'd be a composite shortbow.


And well, small sized longbows in D&D terms have the same stats as medium-sized shortbows. Which you can make composite....the player who is giving me the most trouble for balancing encounters in the Forgotten Realms campaign I'm running right now is a Gnomish ranger with a composite (small sized) longbow with very high strength. I kinda imagine him as looking a bit like Arnold shwartzenegger-gnome sized. He is an absolute murder machine.

 

[DAAANtheMAAAN]

I'm all for it. I've been getting more and more tired of the min-max aspect of RPG's lately, so I've been finding more fun in finding unusual characters. There's an interesting aspect to making a character that is deliberately inferior to others of it's typical race or class, especially from a role-playing aspect. I've played a half-orc wizard before, and having him aware of his racial limits interfering in his passion for magic made for a character that was a lot more willing to strive to do great deeds to deal with his insecurities.

Just as in the real world there are millions of people of all kinds of creeds, races and upbringings in RPG worlds. To say that certain characters absolutely can't be X-class because they are Y-race undermines the concept of a character being something more than a trope or a stereotype.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Well, no.
Even if you ignore the rules, there are still some logical issues with certain combinations.
e.g Gnomish Archer.

What exactly would stop a gnome from using a bow? I mean, he'd have to have a specially made bow for his size, and such a small bow would have reduced range, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a useable bow. Hell, you can give a gnome a compound bow and say that it was made by dwarves and it would be really easy to draw back and while retaining decent power and range.

Something like this would be suited to a gnome archer:

Spoiler

Well, I don't think there were any compound bows back then.
A small recurve bow's string would need a MASSIVE amount of force to be pulled, no Gnome is that strong.
And even if they did have compound bows, an archer needs to be tall (not being racist here!) to properly use a bow, A short archer would always need to lean back and aim up, which wouldn't allow the Gnome archer to Draw the string back far enough.
this plus the arrow's angle hugely affects the bow's lethality. It wouldn't be deadly at all.
So, yeah, no Gnomish archers.
(Don't.Even.Mention.Crossbows)

I don't know man, what about a gnome archer who only aims at people's bollock's? It might not be instantly lethal but it would make him quite effective without having to mess much with angles.

 

[Diddy_Mao]

Short Answer: Yes


Long Answer: Yes, but...I'll usually raise an eyebrow at just rolling Dwarven Necromancers, Orcish Wizards and Halfling Druids all willy nilly.

In most tabletop games there is an element of lore building that goes into the race/class setup and if you're going to deviate from that it's the player's duty to create a convincing argument for the deviation and it's the storyteller's duty to make sure the deviation has consequences.

Example: A few years ago I rolled a character named Llinowan who was an elven barbarian. To avoid a wall of text just imagine San from Princess Mononoke and give her Tarzan's back story with Orcs instead of Gorillas.

I did the legwork, explained the story to the party and storyteller everyone was groovy about it and we started playing.
We had a lot of fun with it. Having a character familiar with the local Orcs made for some good stories when it came time to go clear out the local den of "monsters" and we got to have all kinds of problems with the local elves because the party had allied itself with a "savage."

So yeah. Roll yourself up a Tiefling Paladin. Just do yourself the favor of justifying your creation.

 

[Maze1125]

When I read the title of this thread I went "I really REALLY hope this is about games..."

 

[Superlative]

A million times yes. There's nothing more tedious than a party of Bob the Human Fighter, Treehumper the Elven Mage and Bilbo the Halfling Thief. Show me players that insist on that puritanical nonsense and I'll show you dull cowards, scared of a unique challenge and too unimaginative to leave their comfortable box.

They mocked my Gnome Barbarian, laughed at him, used him as a soccer ball, but little did they know that he, Little Tink Tink, would go on to save the party multiple times with his +2 con and dex. He could even do creepy Gnome Magic on top of it.

 

[Savagezion]

Ha, this very weekend I got a new player that wanted to make a gnome fighter.

Upon rolling a level 1, I soft capped his strength and constitution at 12 (+1) for character creation. I also hard capped both at 16 (+3) Additionally, I placed soft and hard caps on all other races. Like a half orc, for instance, has a hard cap of 16 on dexterity and intelligence and a soft cap of 12 at lvl 1. These hard caps didn't even effect any of the already playing characters despite having an oddball character already in the mix.

As well, this gnome fighter chose archery for his fighting style. One thing to note in DnD is that strength isn't factored in using a bow, or crossbow. I have a party full of str 8 (-1) bow users. To say strength is required for a bow, just isn't true in context of the game. Many elves out there would have to lay down their bows if this were true.

Even in the latest Player's Handbook under races where they are explaining gnomes in the DnD universe, is a picture of a gnome using a short bow. The same place where a dwarf and half orc are holding hammers. I actually had to talk this gnome fighter into archery as he seriously wanted great weapons, which I told him that a bastard sword is basically what he would be using as a 'great sword' and that he would never really be able to weild great weapons. However, due to his strength, he will be able to wield one handed human weapons like longswords and flails as two handed and would fall under great weapons for him. Anything considered heavy, is impossible for him. Anything considered light, he can 1 hand, and everything else is 2 handed. So he can still run a short sword and shield pretty easy. For him a dagger is essentially a shortsword and a shortsword is essentially a piercing 'long sword'. PLus, there are blacksmiths in the world for making smaller weapons, but in my world that actually does raise the cost +20% or 5 gold, whichever is higher (unless the smith is a dwarf) as small races aren't really accommodated at large in my world.

 

[TallanKhan]

I think yes but there ought to be appropriate bonuses/penalties for choosing a class that does/doesn't suit your character's racial type. For instance a Half-Orc would get a bonus if choosing Barbarian, a Halfling would recieve a penalty.

 

[spartandude]

Well, no.
Even if you ignore the rules, there are still some logical issues with certain combinations.
e.g Gnomish Archer.

Its interesting you used this example because in the D&d 5th edition PHB the picture of the gnome in its racial section is of one using a bow and arrow.


OT

Generally speaking i would allow any race/class combo. Of course you might be running a specific setting which wouldnt allow something, people have mention Dragonage with Dwarves not being able to use magic. But in a usualy D&D setting where you have all the races and all the classes i don't see why not. I also find some of the class/race restrictions stupid in previous editions like Elves cant be barbarians. Thats stupid! Sure its not a classical thing for them and they are frail but so what. Some might adopt that life style and the downside is going to be reflected in their stats.

 

[Thalamus]

Well, no.
Even if you ignore the rules, there are still some logical issues with certain combinations.
e.g Gnomish Archer.

Its interesting you used this example because in the D&d 5th edition PHB the picture of the gnome in its racial section is of one using a bow and arrow.


OT

Generally speaking i would allow any race/class combo. Of course you might be running a specific setting which wouldnt allow something, people have mention Dragonage with Dwarves not being able to use magic. But in a usualy D&D setting where you have all the races and all the classes i don't see why not. I also find some of the class/race restrictions stupid in previous editions like Elves cant be barbarians. Thats stupid! Sure its not a classical thing for them and they are frail but so what. Some might adopt that life style and the downside is going to be reflected in their stats.

Elven Barbarians?
just...WHAT???

 

[spartandude]

Well, no.
Even if you ignore the rules, there are still some logical issues with certain combinations.
e.g Gnomish Archer.

Its interesting you used this example because in the D&d 5th edition PHB the picture of the gnome in its racial section is of one using a bow and arrow.


OT

Generally speaking i would allow any race/class combo. Of course you might be running a specific setting which wouldnt allow something, people have mention Dragonage with Dwarves not being able to use magic. But in a usualy D&D setting where you have all the races and all the classes i don't see why not. I also find some of the class/race restrictions stupid in previous editions like Elves cant be barbarians. Thats stupid! Sure its not a classical thing for them and they are frail but so what. Some might adopt that life style and the downside is going to be reflected in their stats.

Elven Barbarians?
just...WHAT???

Why can't an elf just go nuts and smashy smashy everything it sees in a fit of rage?

 

[Sentay]

Alright so since everyone (mods, people, me) have disregarded the call for a lock, I might as well post my decision. After much consideration I decided to make it so that the starting classes change depending on where your character originates from (so there's like 7 or 8 different version of the standard warrior, thief, mage, palladin, and ranger classes that all do their thing in different ways and with different weapons and tools) and as you progress you can train in other classes (by going to the appropriate country and finding someone to train you at the cost of a currency you receive from leveling). So for example a thief can spend a certain amount of SP (name in progress) to learn how to be another class (with classes being changeable in towns or other safe zones).

 

[ChaoGuy2006]

Well, no.
Even if you ignore the rules, there are still some logical issues with certain combinations.
e.g Gnomish Archer.

Its interesting you used this example because in the D&d 5th edition PHB the picture of the gnome in its racial section is of one using a bow and arrow.


OT

Generally speaking i would allow any race/class combo. Of course you might be running a specific setting which wouldnt allow something, people have mention Dragonage with Dwarves not being able to use magic. But in a usualy D&D setting where you have all the races and all the classes i don't see why not. I also find some of the class/race restrictions stupid in previous editions like Elves cant be barbarians. Thats stupid! Sure its not a classical thing for them and they are frail but so what. Some might adopt that life style and the downside is going to be reflected in their stats.

Elven Barbarians?
just...WHAT???

An Elf child could be abandoned by it's parents, raised in the wastelands by humans. Or one that had their whole village wiped out, and as the sole survivor went half-mad and became savage to survive.

Lore lets you pull off a lot. Though I will admit, when I was reading Pathfinder's default characters seeing that the Dwarf Ranger "preferred tea to mead" I damn near snapped a tooth from gritting my teeth ("It kept his mind sharp").

So IMO, go off-base as your players are willing to believe, and as believable as you can make it.

For MMOs/videogames I don't mind either. I like playing as all classes and races anyway. So if I have to mix things up, I can dig it.

 

[Thalamus]

Well, no.
Even if you ignore the rules, there are still some logical issues with certain combinations.
e.g Gnomish Archer.

Its interesting you used this example because in the D&d 5th edition PHB the picture of the gnome in its racial section is of one using a bow and arrow.


OT

Generally speaking i would allow any race/class combo. Of course you might be running a specific setting which wouldnt allow something, people have mention Dragonage with Dwarves not being able to use magic. But in a usualy D&D setting where you have all the races and all the classes i don't see why not. I also find some of the class/race restrictions stupid in previous editions like Elves cant be barbarians. Thats stupid! Sure its not a classical thing for them and they are frail but so what. Some might adopt that life style and the downside is going to be reflected in their stats.

Elven Barbarians?
just...WHAT???

An Elf child could be abandoned by it's parents, raised in the wastelands by humans. Or one that had their whole village wiped out, and as the sole survivor went half-mad and became savage to survive.

Lore lets you pull off a lot. Though I will admit, when I was reading Pathfinder's default characters seeing that the Dwarf Ranger "preferred tea to mead" I damn near snapped a tooth from gritting my teeth ("It kept his mind sharp").

So IMO, go off-base as your players are willing to believe, and as believable as you can make it.

For MMOs/videogames I don't mind either. I like playing as all classes and races anyway. So if I have to mix things up, I can dig it.

Well, this does seem fair, but I still have some problems with it.
Lore will let you go wild, but it will have it's restrictions.
Elves very rarely let go of their children, but when they do, they have a very good reason (protection until adulthood,etc.)
and they won't just leave the kid on the side of the road.
They either leave it to a trusted tribe/family, or under the protection of nature.
and they will leave a guardian with him, to protect him from any harm at all.
The case where the elven child is left, and is picked up by some other people and then all the other stuff...
that is very very very unlikely to happen!

 

[aozgolo]

I would say yes except for very specific cases where lore clearly identifies specific races as lacking affinity for particular things, like dwarves being druids or intellectually inferior races using Psionics

 

[ChaoGuy2006]

Well, no.
Even if you ignore the rules, there are still some logical issues with certain combinations.
e.g Gnomish Archer.

Its interesting you used this example because in the D&d 5th edition PHB the picture of the gnome in its racial section is of one using a bow and arrow.


OT

Generally speaking i would allow any race/class combo. Of course you might be running a specific setting which wouldnt allow something, people have mention Dragonage with Dwarves not being able to use magic. But in a usualy D&D setting where you have all the races and all the classes i don't see why not. I also find some of the class/race restrictions stupid in previous editions like Elves cant be barbarians. Thats stupid! Sure its not a classical thing for them and they are frail but so what. Some might adopt that life style and the downside is going to be reflected in their stats.

Elven Barbarians?
just...WHAT???

An Elf child could be abandoned by it's parents, raised in the wastelands by humans. Or one that had their whole village wiped out, and as the sole survivor went half-mad and became savage to survive.

Lore lets you pull off a lot. Though I will admit, when I was reading Pathfinder's default characters seeing that the Dwarf Ranger "preferred tea to mead" I damn near snapped a tooth from gritting my teeth ("It kept his mind sharp").

So IMO, go off-base as your players are willing to believe, and as believable as you can make it.

For MMOs/videogames I don't mind either. I like playing as all classes and races anyway. So if I have to mix things up, I can dig it.

Well, this does seem fair, but I still have some problems with it.
Lore will let you go wild, but it will have it's restrictions.
Elves very rarely let go of their children, but when they do, they have a very good reason (protection until adulthood,etc.)
and they won't just leave the kid on the side of the road.
They either leave it to a trusted tribe/family, or under the protection of nature.
and they will leave a guardian with him, to protect him from any harm at all.
The case where the elven child is left, and is picked up by some other people and then all the other stuff...
that is very very very unlikely to happen!

Ah, fair enough. And even if the child was abandoned due to no fault of the parents (sudden death, etc) then "nature" as you said would look after the child. Their affinity for nature would mean an abandoned Elf would wind up as a Druid, right?

 

[Thalamus]

Well, no.
Even if you ignore the rules, there are still some logical issues with certain combinations.
e.g Gnomish Archer.

Its interesting you used this example because in the D&d 5th edition PHB the picture of the gnome in its racial section is of one using a bow and arrow.


OT

Generally speaking i would allow any race/class combo. Of course you might be running a specific setting which wouldnt allow something, people have mention Dragonage with Dwarves not being able to use magic. But in a usualy D&D setting where you have all the races and all the classes i don't see why not. I also find some of the class/race restrictions stupid in previous editions like Elves cant be barbarians. Thats stupid! Sure its not a classical thing for them and they are frail but so what. Some might adopt that life style and the downside is going to be reflected in their stats.

Elven Barbarians?
just...WHAT???

An Elf child could be abandoned by it's parents, raised in the wastelands by humans. Or one that had their whole village wiped out, and as the sole survivor went half-mad and became savage to survive.

Lore lets you pull off a lot. Though I will admit, when I was reading Pathfinder's default characters seeing that the Dwarf Ranger "preferred tea to mead" I damn near snapped a tooth from gritting my teeth ("It kept his mind sharp").

So IMO, go off-base as your players are willing to believe, and as believable as you can make it.

For MMOs/videogames I don't mind either. I like playing as all classes and races anyway. So if I have to mix things up, I can dig it.

Well, this does seem fair, but I still have some problems with it.
Lore will let you go wild, but it will have it's restrictions.
Elves very rarely let go of their children, but when they do, they have a very good reason (protection until adulthood,etc.)
and they won't just leave the kid on the side of the road.
They either leave it to a trusted tribe/family, or under the protection of nature.
and they will leave a guardian with him, to protect him from any harm at all.
The case where the elven child is left, and is picked up by some other people and then all the other stuff...
that is very very very unlikely to happen!

Ah, fair enough. And even if the child was abandoned due to no fault of the parents (sudden death, etc) then "nature" as you said would look after the child. Their affinity for nature would mean an abandoned Elf would wind up as a Druid, right?

It does seem logical, yeah.