Race as Class: Redux

So here's the first bit:

Original D&D


So the idea of multi-classing didn't appear in the original three brown booklets; it comes later in Greyhawk. For now, what we have are four races, only one of which can do multiple classes, but not at the same time. I've put Balrogs under "race as class" since there is little more than the initial suggestion of how to potentially handle them.

I'm going to add tables for Greyhawk, AD&D, magazine materials, and then see what it all shows. Comments welcome!

Maybe archetype was the wrong word, but I think we understand each others' meaning. In one campaign I had a player with a "dwarf" class character and other another with a "dwarven bombardier" class character.

Here's the next installment:

Greyhawk adds multi-classing (which ends up being a can of worms by the time of 3rd Ed.):


The implications of this are fairly straightforward: humans tend to fulfill the archetype of each class, making it harder for them to do two or more of them (making multi-classing impossible). However, demi-humans can and do multi-class, but that flexibility is paid for by being unable to fully realize what each class is about (thus level limits).

While I might be saying things that have been said before, what I am working around towards is a theory (or at least theoretical restatement) of how and why "class as race" actually fits in some circumstances, and how to gauge that for yourself as a referee.

See, this is another great example of thinking it through - what do you want to emphasize in your own campaign? I wish more referees would think this way. Personally, I like a LOT of variety, so I doubt I'd end up doing things this way - but it is a very good example of making the game your own.

Here's the next installment:

AD&D 1st Edition looks a lot like Greyhawk:


As per the DMG, page 21, "Advanced D&D is unquestionably "humanocentric", with demi-humans, semi-humans, and humanoids in various orbits around the sun of humanity....The considered opinion of this writer is that such characters [monsters] are not beneficial to the game and should be excluded."

From a philosophical perspective, AD&D was trying to maintain a focus on humans, and at the same time, the concept that all of the appropriate races could exemplify different archetypes; e.g. warrior, wizard, high priests, etc. It's an interesting balancing act, and one that doesn't completely succeed; classes and races began to diversify very quickly.

This is also a moment to recognize Gygaxian Naturalism, as well as Gygaxian Unnaturalism: "The game features humankind for a reason. It is the most logical basis in an illogical game....From a standpoint of creating the campaign milieu it provides the most readily usable assumptions."

A wry wit might call this a kind of "species-ist" perspective, and that is true on a somewhat philosophical level. However, the deeper implication is that it is up to the referee to figure out the assumptions behind the inclusion and role of each race in their game, and to structure their reflection in the game mechanics appropriately.

(When I get to talking about Basic D&D, there will be some interesting implications worth further examination.)

I think I grok what you're getting at here, Badger.

From 1e on, I think this was an unconscious assumption; one of the first questions always asked was which classes would be allowed. Assassins? Illusionists? Druids? What gods would the clerics worship? What about ostensibly NPC classes from Dragon, like ninja and anti-paladins? What about bards, either from the back of the PHB or from Dragon?

I did the same thing with my current LL game, adding and subtracting or adjusting classes with an eye towards what I wanted my game to be like. I know I succeeded when one of my players pointed out that one of my classes (the rogue) didn't seem to fit in the campaign. She was right, and this was because it was the first new class I built, back when I had a very different idea of what the campaign would be about.

But yes, adding, deleting and mutilating classes is a great way to make a game your own.

Apologies if your question is rhetorical, and if you know this already.

It actually goes all the way back to the 1974 White Box and LBB. At the start of OD&D you are given choice as to class (Fighter, Magic-user, Cleric) and race (human, hobbit, elf, dwarf) and the limits are clearly imposed in Men & Magic; e.g. the experience chart on page 16 clearly marks 4th level fighter as the "highest level for elf", 6th level fighter "highest level for dwarf", and 8th level magic-user as "highest level for elf" again. As such, at least as far back as 1974 class and race are seperate entities.

The change to BD&D was the official change-over, as AD&D continued the natural evolution of OD&D+Supplements while BD&D took a new direction and blended race/class together. I think the notion was that there were several stereotypes which evolved through play (dwarves were always fighters, elves did both fighting and magic use, hobbits were always sneaky types, etc) that caused a natural evolution whereby race and class became the same thing.

This becomes more problematic if additional classes are added to the mix, unless it is assumed that only humans can be monks, paladins, druids, etc. AD&D's solution would be to impose level limits to each new class by race, but BD&D's solution would have been to create an entirely new racial template to accomodate the new professions. To me, that's where the race=class model tends to fall apart. The more options, the harder it is to maintain a race=class system, unless the new classes become human-only ones.

Doesn't stop me from thinking its awesome

I actually was just thinking of this and it kinda gelled for me as to why I love race as class (and sometimes even ethnic group as class). If you look at, say, the classical period or middle ages you'd have a few types of hero's locally, but the only foreign hero's you'd generally see was some type of mercenary troop or something. Often the only Egyptians people out side of north Africa would see were their famed archers, and the only Germanic some Latins would know of were mounted cavalry. In most the human centered settings, or at least settings where the fantasy races stick together dwarves are foreigners, so the only dwaves you might meet adventuring would be members of famed axe-wielding mercenary bands who stayed around to pursue something more.

Totally having a brainfart, DBA?