Enemy-specific classes?

[aegis]

As a class without a setting that's great general tool. but if you actually have a clearly defined environment, I feel you can do something that fits better.

That can be said of many many classes. And that's what master classes are made for, I guess.

[Sletchman]

in som cases especially with the dwarfs its not so much just the racism as it is practice from fighting them so much

Ah, yes.  The notorious dwarf bakers who bludgeon orcs with stale baguettes.  The fearsome dwarf nannies and their immaculate orc-scolding techniques.  The dreaded dwarf florists with their incessant assaults on orcish aesthetic sensibilities.  Truly, every single dwarf fights orcs.  Constantly.  It is a society devoted entirely to war.  Grimdark!  GRIMDAAAARK!

Uh, how about National Service?  If the only thing you fight is orcs, and you have national service, then why wouldn't everyone be trained to fight them?

[foproy]

in som cases especially with the dwarfs its not so much just the racism as it is practice from fighting them so much

Ah, yes.  The notorious dwarf bakers who bludgeon orcs with stale baguettes.  The fearsome dwarf nannies and their immaculate orc-scolding techniques.  The dreaded dwarf florists with their incessant assaults on orcish aesthetic sensibilities.  Truly, every single dwarf fights orcs.  Constantly.  It is a society devoted entirely to war.  Grimdark!  GRIMDAAAARK!

Uh, how about National Service?  If the only thing you fight is orcs, and you have national service, then why wouldn't everyone be trained to fight them?

also when was the last time in a traditional dnd game you created a dwarven nanny, or florist, and as far as the bakers go you have read pratchet right? those baguettes can be deadly.

[Tegyrius]

Uh, how about National Service?  If the only thing you fight is orcs, and you have national service, then why wouldn't everyone be trained to fight them?

Universal conscription with a 1:0 teeth:tail ratio?  How's that economic model and combat support structure working out for your nation?

Sorry, still not buying it.  YMMV.

- C.

[Sletchman]

Uh, how about National Service?  If the only thing you fight is orcs, and you have national service, then why wouldn't everyone be trained to fight them?

Universal conscription with a 1:0 teeth:tail ratio?  How's that economic model and combat support structure working out for your nation?

Sorry, still not buying it.  YMMV.

- C.

Sorry, but I have seriously NFI what you mean here.

[paddyfool]

Uh, how about National Service?  If the only thing you fight is orcs, and you have national service, then why wouldn't everyone be trained to fight them?

Universal conscription with a 1:0 teeth:tail ratio?  How's that economic model and combat support structure working out for your nation?

Sorry, still not buying it.  YMMV.

- C.

If what you mean is 100% of the population doing national service, well, it seems to work out for Israel to conscript 100% of Israeli jews, Druze and Circassians (although it's voluntary for Arabs and Bedouin, and Israel is, of course, backed financially quite heavily by the USA).  100% of the male population, or 50% of the overall population, hardly seems to have devastated the economic model of South Korea, Singapore, Switzerland or Taiwan either.

[Catodon]

I'm not convinced that enforcing it isn't a human rights violation...but we're talking about orcs here right 

[Tegyrius]

If what you mean is 100% of the population doing national service, well, it seems to work out for Israel to conscript 100% of Israeli jews, Druze and Circassians (although it's voluntary for Arabs and Bedouin, and Israel is, of course, backed financially quite heavily by the USA).  100% of the male population, or 50% of the overall population, hardly seems to have devastated the economic model of South Korea, Singapore, Switzerland or Taiwan either.

And do 100% of them stay in the military, in combat arms, long enough to gain a level of combat training and experience equivalent to a "racial bonus against enemies of the state?"  Remember, these are species (or equivalent) bonuses we're talking about here... traits that are common to every single member of an entire species or culture.  And that are sufficiently prominent that they're a higher priority, in game mechanics, than uniquenesses of physiology.

I'm not convinced that enforcing it isn't a human rights violation...but we're talking about orcs here right 

Don't know about you, but I'm talking about how ridiculous and disturbing some D&D mechanics get when you try to map them into real-world equivalents...

- C.

[paddyfool]

And do 100% of them stay in the military, in combat arms, long enough to gain a level of combat training and experience equivalent to a "racial bonus against enemies of the state?"

- C.

If you were doing modern world talents by nation etc., and you included Israelis, it would be very tempting to include a bonus to desert warfare or counterterrorism in some way from their training.  You could include a bonus to fighting arabs, or palestinians, but how you'd fight them vs how you'd fight someone else using similar tactics isn't as different as how you'd fight orcs compared to how you'd fight kobolds, so it really doesn't fit as well as, say, a bonus to fight trollocs or darkspawn in general might fit a "Northlander" talent in the Wheel of Time setting.

EDIT: Basically, the place for bonuses against certain groups in a Species or Talent is where that group poses an implacable threat to said Species or Talent, to the point where knowledge of how to fight them would become ubiquitous.  Say, in a fantasy world, the dwarven lands had become overwhelmed by demons, and all dwarves pushed back to highly fortified holds, which were still subject to frequent demonic assault.  In that case, it would make sense for the dwarves of that world to have bonuses to fight demons as default, with the exceptional dwarves who wouldn't have been affected (ex-pats and so forth) having species feats which swapped out said bonus for other things.  Or something like that.

[Catodon]

I'm not convinced that enforcing it isn't a human rights violation...but we're talking about orcs here right 

Don't know about you, but I'm talking about how ridiculous and disturbing some D&D mechanics get when you try to map them into real-world equivalents...

- C.

Yeh, that was my point,
 it makes sense for orcs, cos orcs are portrayed as sub-human & bred for war. An orc is a bogey man and we were just starting to get a bit pollitical which was a smidge silly in this context.

[Mister Andersen]

Israelis would get a free or bonus weapon proficiency, the Military study and most likely favoured specialties

[Dhampire]

Israelis would get a free or bonus weapon proficiency, the Military study and most likely favoured specialties

I would agree.

After all, Dr. Ruth is an Israeli.  During her time in military there, she was a sniper.

[Krensky]

Israelis would get a free or bonus weapon proficiency, the Military study and most likely favoured specialties

I would agree.

After all, Dr. Ruth is an Israeli.  During her time in military there, she was a sniper.

Remember folks... The most famous sniper in history is not famous for being a sniper.

[Morgenstern]

I'm looking at a lot of interesting conversions from the 4th Ed Avenger class and the idea of favored enemies came up again. What I'm thinking is presnest a sidebar laying out the concept of "Campaign Enemies" with a key factor being that the GM creates a short list of the recuring opposition he's going to be using in the setting so that players can pick from the list with some confidence they'll be seeing any given capaign enemy at least every 4th adventure. Then the mechanical widgets will read something like "Choose a campaign enemy. You gain blah when doing stuff to/with opponents of that sort." Then you can break it down into some tricks or small boosts in a larger feat or class ability.

Non-flexible version could be applied to more setting-specific character options.

[paddyfool]

A few more thoughts on motives for bonuses vs specific opponents:

Bonuses that define what a character is born/raised as:
Species/talent bonuses would necessitate a fierce conflict spanning generations.  Something like the Northern nations in the Wheel of Time (where everyone, even a baker/nursemaid/whatever, might be expected to know more about Darkspawn, and how to fight them, than someone doing the equivalent job from the Two Rivers or Illium).  Similarly, Trollocs from that setting might have bonuses to fight humans, since that's what they were designed for.  No real-world counterparts, largely because we don't have conflicts between different species (different groups of humans not really being all that different).

Bonuses that define a character's background otherwise:
Specialty bonuses can apply much more broadly - some kind of Borderguard specialty could be focused on fighting a particular species that occupies adjacent terrain, a Negotiator specialty could be focused on negotiating with other species, etc.

Bonuses that define what a character does:
Generic classes: You could have Ambassadors as an expert class with a class ability that gives social skill bonuses for specific species for which they have studies  I've also had more thoughts on the Seasoned Veterans with abilities from past campaigns against specific opponents.  These could be very simple and generic, e.g. +1 Attack/Damage/Defence vs X.  Alternatively, they could involve learning to match an opponent at something, e.g. gaining Always Ready from a past Orc campaign.  Alternatively again, they could involve learning to exploit a specific weakness, e.g. gaining bonuses to Fire damage from a Rootwalker campaign, Electricity damage from an Unborn campaign, or Divine Damage from an Undead campaign.  They could also involve learning to bypass a specific defence, e.g. gaining AP from a Dwarf campaign.  Alternatively, they could avoid learning to defend against specific attacks, e.g. gaining Fire Resistance from a Drake campaign, or Sneak Attack resistance from a Goblin campaign.

Specific classes: Morg's convinced me on different types of hunter being rather different.  The most obvious of these would be some kind of Witch Hunter class with abilities focused on countering magic, some kind of Investigative class which could cover hunters of spies, criminals, heretics etc., and maybe a distinct hunter of the undead (so tempting to call this a "slayer").  Aside from the last, their abilities would be more designed to counter abilities than species, however.

Setting-specific classes: In various settings, there may be a need for classes specifically designed around unusual conflicts, threats and/or challenges. For Evil campaigns in the Sunchaser setting, the Black Erron could have a Huntmaster expert class with a bonus to capturing Saurians from years of experience, for instance.  Similarly, Brighteyes' people could have a Missionary of the Sun expert class with a bonus to social skills vs Saurians and Erron particularly.

Feats: Basic combat feats that give bonuses along the lines of the campaign bonuses I gave above might also work.  Maybe a single "Know thy enemy" feat, which may be taken multiple times with different aggressive and/or defensive bonuses for each species given, but that first requires a study for that species or somesuch.