Evolution of Classes in D&D

[Finarvyn]

I think that it's interesting to look at the evolution of character classes as the D&D game evolved, and the fact that most of the key pieces were in place by the end of 1976.

We begin with a proto-D&D and find only two classes.

Chainmail
Fighting Man (1971)
Magic-user / Wizard (1971)

At this point, the level system was very crude.

Fighting Men were one of three types:
Man = level 1
Hero = level 4
Super Hero = level 8

Magic-users were one of five types:
Seer = 1 spell
Magician = 3 spells
Warlock = 4 spells
Sorcerer = 5 spells
Wizard = 6-7 spells

[Finarvyn]

Step two was the little brown books of OD&D.

Original Dungeons & Dragons boxed set
Cleric (New Class 1974) FC; d6
Fighting Man (Revised 1974) FC; d6
Magic-user (Revised 1974) FC; d6

All classes use d6 hit dice and all are rated accordingg to "Fighting Capability" which somewhat matches HD (except for Clerics).

The Cleric class is new, and is clearly designed as a means to fight the undead.

Fighting Man levels have been filled in.

Magic-user levels have been re-arranged slightly and filled in. Each magic-user now has a certain number of spells of each spell level, rather than just a total number of spells.

[Finarvyn]

The next step of evolution is the brown book supplements. These are presented in alphabetical order because I'm not entirely certain that the supplement publishing order reflects the order of class creation.

Original Dungeons & Dragons supplement books
Assassin (Thief sub-class 1975; Blackmoor)
Cleric (Revised 1976; Greyhawk) FC; d6
Druid (Cleric sub-class 1976; Eldritch Wizardry) FC; d6
Fighting Man (Revised 1976; Greyhawk) FC; d8
Magic-user (Revised 1976; Greyhawk) FC; d4
Monk (Cleric sub-class 1975; Blackmoor)
Paladin (Fighter sub-class 1976; Greyhawk)
Thief (1976; Greyhawk) FC; d4

Three notable things here.
1. The creation of the Thief class, which many consider to be one of the classic “big four” classes. Many ‘back to the basics” OD&D campaigns seem to go with white box plus the thief.
2. The creation of the "sub class" where it was assumed that many of the class abilites applied without being specifically stated as such. So, for example, I suppose we can assume that the FC for the Monk would be identical to the Cleric even though there is no FC given for the Monk.
3. The variable hit-dice model comes into play. Rather than giving all characters a d6, each class is given its own type of hit dice and the HD table is revised for each class. This means that new classes (not sub-classes) without FC designation could never "officially" get one.

[Finarvyn]

The final step of evolution (before AD&D began to come out) would be a gradual trickle of ideas from various authors and published through TSR magazines. Clearly at this point OD&D really "took off" as more and more people added their own parts to the game, rather than just a small group of "official" supplement editors.

Additional Classes in order of appearance…
Ranger (Fighting Man sub-class 1975; Strategic Review #2) d8
Illusionist (Magic-user sub-class 1975; SR #4) d4
Bard (New class 1976; SR #6) no FC; d6
Alchemist (Cleric variant 1976; Dragon #2) d6
Female variant classes on Cleric, Fighter, Magic-user, Thief (1976; Dragon #3)

At this point, no new classes are added for at least a year. Wth the release of the AD&D Monster Manual in 1977, the OD&D world would never be quite the same again....

[Finarvyn]

So, the total "tree" of OD&D classes looks something like this:

Fighting Man
* Paladin (sub-class)
* Ranger (sub-class)
* Female variant

Magic-user
* Illusionist (sub-class)
* Female variant

Cleric
* Alchemist (variant class)
* Druid (sub-class)
* Monk (sub-class)
* Female variant

Thief
* Assassin (sub-class)
* Female variant

Bard

[foster1941]

There were several "NPC classes" published in TD#3 that were produced outside of TSR and didn't make the cut for AD&D -- the samurai, the berserker, the healer, the scribe, the jester, and perhaps 1 or 2 others. I wouldn't particularly recommend any of these for actual use, but I'm sure back then some people did use them.

Other companies published their own new and variant classes as well -- Paul Jaquays had a couple female-variant classes (amazons and witches, IIRC) in The Dungeoneer, Judges Guild had a couple (wit and litigation trickster, IIRC), and of course The Arduin Grimoires had tons of new classes.

[Finarvyn]

I remember those NPC classes. I didn't use them either.

I hadn't thought to include any of the Judges Guild or Arduin stuff -- I was trying to focus on TSR material. I'll have to ponder how much to expand my thinking.

[crimhthanthegreat]

admin said:

I remember those NPC classes. I didn't use them either.

I hadn't thought to include any of the Judges Guild or Arduin stuff -- I was trying to focus on TSR material. I'll have to ponder how much to expand my thinking.

I think that a lot of it will fall under the heading of house rules. Maybe a separate house rules thread for the non-TSR stuff.

[Melan]

foster1941 said:

Other companies published their own new and variant classes as well -- Paul Jaquays had a couple female-variant classes (amazons and witches, IIRC) in The Dungeoneer, Judges Guild had a couple (wit and litigation trickster, IIRC), and of course The Arduin Grimoires had tons of new classes.

Litigation Tricksters, appearing in JG's City State of the Invincible Overlord, were assigned regular PC classes like M-U or FTR, so they don't count. Supplements like CSIO and Tegel Manor list some, but not all female NPCs as belonging to the "FEM" class; details of them were never published to my knowledge (unless they appear in Judges Guild Journal or are references to the TSR article). I can't recally with certainty whether amazons were classed as AMZ. I don't have Shield Maidens of Sea Rune at hand, and that's a later era product anyway.

Paul Jaquays and friends produced multiple new classes for The Dungeoneer: ice wizards (four spell levels, NPC only), women (female analogies to the standard three classes in Men&Magic), and maybe others.

[murquhart72]

I think the game would've done just fine without classes. I all started when trying to decide: Will my character be a fighting man or a magic user? Hmm... Fighting-Man... Magic-User...
And the rest (as stated above) is history ;D

[crimhthanthegreat]

Quoted from above:

Fighting Man I use this
* Paladin (sub-class) I use this
* Ranger (sub-class) I use this
* Female variant I don't use this

Magic-user I use this
* Illusionist (sub-class) I don't use this
* Female variant I don't use this

Cleric I use this
* Alchemist (variant class) I don't use this
* Druid (sub-class) I use this
* Monk (sub-class) I don't use this
* Female variant I don't use this

Thief I use this
* Assassin (sub-class) I don't use this
* Female variant I don't use this

Bard I use this

[Mordorandor]

The early materials that scoped the NPC classes looked much like PC classes, likely to enable/emulate the growth/improvement of skills.

In addition to offering a mechanism for PCs to improve their NPCs, or referees a mechanism to make one NPC better skilled than another, it got players wanting to play some of these classes.

"They have advancement tables ... and some cool skills ..." [eyebrow wiggles and smiles] I want to be dual class fighting-man/scribe."

[Red Baron]

Jun 23, 2007 7:56:02 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

The final step of evolution (before AD&D began to come out) would be a gradual trickle of ideas from various authors and published through TSR magazines. Clearly at this point OD&D really "took off" as more and more people added their own parts to the game, rather than just a small group of "official" supplement editors.

Additional Classes in order of appearance…
Ranger (Fighting Man sub-class 1975; Strategic Review #2) d8
Illusionist (Magic-user sub-class 1975; SR #4) d4
Bard (New class 1976; SR #6) no FC; d6
Alchemist (Cleric variant 1976; Dragon #2) d6
Female variant classes on Cleric, Fighter, Magic-user, Thief (1976; Dragon #3)

At this point, no new classes are added for at least a year. Wth the release of the AD&D Monster Manual in 1977, the OD&D world would never be quite the same again....

I was looking at the blurb on the back of my PHB yesterday and it specifically advertises "no more looking through 'zines to find the content you're trying to remebr the rules for" (I forget the exact wording, but it's a call out to the classes, etc from zine articles).

[plethon]

Don't forget the Jester, from The Dragon, October '76,

He can wield a smelly sock, an acid squirting flower, pies..

As for myself, I'm thinking of dropping even the cleric in a new campaign I am planning, and just going with FM and MU. It's not just that they step on both fighters and magic users, they also take the wind out of undead. I am always bored and disappointed when an undead encounter is negated by a single roll. I think the roll to turn undead causes the same issues that thief skills do, a rote roll tied to a specific class that makes the other classes irrelevant in that moment.

I'm actually thinking of introducing a totally unique undead hierarchy from 1-9 HD, with each undead having specific weaknesses which the players will have to figure out in play.

Priests are going to exist in my setting as NPCs who are basically servants tied to specific gods/idols.

[Finarvyn]

Jan 2, 2023 15:16:57 GMT -6 plethon said:

As for myself, I'm thinking of dropping even the cleric in a new campaign I am planning, and just going with FM and MU. It's not just that they step on both fighters and magic users, they also take the wind out of undead. I am always bored and disappointed when an undead encounter is negated by a single roll. I think the roll to turn undead causes the same issues that thief skills do, a rote roll tied to a specific class that makes the other classes irrelevant in that moment.

I love your thoughts about the Cleric, as they mirror my own.

I'm not as sold on elimination of the thief, however, as I have a couple of players who really like to play them. Certainly, in the pre-thief days, regular characters felt they could try thief things more often. I do lament the loss of creativity for characters who now default to watching the thief in action, but I think my solution is to give everyone a level of thief at the onset of the campaign and then let each player decide if they want to improve those skills or not.

[retrorob]

Just drop the thief and the problem is solved.

As for the cleric, bear in mind that he can destroy only 2-12 undead creature (per encounter probably), with an average of 7. What if 20 wights appear? If you use the draining level rule a cleric character is a must

[hamurai]

Jan 2, 2023 15:16:57 GMT -6 plethon said:

As for myself, I'm thinking of dropping even the cleric in a new campaign I am planning, and just going with FM and MU. It's not just that they step on both fighters and magic users, they also take the wind out of undead. I am always bored and disappointed when an undead encounter is negated by a single roll. I think the roll to turn undead causes the same issues that thief skills do, a rote roll tied to a specific class that makes the other classes irrelevant in that moment.

That depends on how your Turn Undead ability works - ever since I read OD&D's entry "Monster turned away" we play that the affected undead actually just turn away, they can't bear the sight of the cleric and their holy symbol. It doesn't matter if they actually "see" them, it's pretty much instinct to them to shrink away, cower down... But they don't run away, so they'll still be there and need to be destroyed. The cleric can't use other abilities while holding the undead at bay, so no healing the others who combat those undead who didn't turn away. Destroy the cleric's concentration and the turned undead will recover within [2d4-HD] rounds and attack the cleric with priority.

Just some ideas to limit the Turn Undead ability.

[waysoftheearth]

Don't forget that the Singer (AE#1, June 1975) preceded the Bard.

[plethon]

Jan 3, 2023 10:57:20 GMT -6 hamurai said:

Jan 2, 2023 15:16:57 GMT -6 plethon said:

As for myself, I'm thinking of dropping even the cleric in a new campaign I am planning, and just going with FM and MU. It's not just that they step on both fighters and magic users, they also take the wind out of undead. I am always bored and disappointed when an undead encounter is negated by a single roll. I think the roll to turn undead causes the same issues that thief skills do, a rote roll tied to a specific class that makes the other classes irrelevant in that moment.

That depends on how your Turn Undead ability works - ever since I read OD&D's entry "Monster turned away" we play that the affected undead actually just turn away, they can't bear the sight of the cleric and their holy symbol. It doesn't matter if they actually "see" them, it's pretty much instinct to them to shrink away, cower down... But they don't run away, so they'll still be there and need to be destroyed. The cleric can't use other abilities while holding the undead at bay, so no healing the others who combat those undead who didn't turn away. Destroy the cleric's concentration and the turned undead will recover within [2d4-HD] rounds and attack the cleric with priority.

Just some ideas to limit the Turn Undead ability.

Turning undead is still going to exist, it's just going to be different for each undead and something any character could do, rather than a roll made by one specific class. For instance, some undead will probably still be turnable by the presentation of some symbol, but the players will not necessarily know what kind of symbol. Maybe they discover the symbol while in the dungeon itself. Some other undead may have a completely different weakness which negates them, like fire, water, certain odours or sounds, etc.

The concept will remain, it just won't be a roll.

[tdenmark]

I've come to think the Paladin is what the Cleric should have been, except that the Paladin is overpowered and too specific. So I'd propose a class who follows a particular Deity or Order with a mix of spell casting and martial ability. A sort of Militant Monk character in place of the Cleric. So core classes would look like:

Fighter
Mage
Militant Monk
Thief

And that's all you'd ever need at the core level. Infinite variations and variety of classes in other source books and campaign settings after that.

I have a design for the Militant Monk posted somewhere on these boards, and also here.

[plethon]

tdenmark I also considered replacing cleric with monk, I think it would be a good fit in a lot of games.

I'm trying to make my next game more black and white in general, for many reasons not least of which is getting a lot busier in my personal life.

Another complicating aspect of player clerics is having multiple sources of magic on the player side and the whole DMing job of worldbuilding the divine magic and the gods, it's easier to keep this locked away and rule by fiat there... Having a player who is a servant of a deity just opens the whole can of worms. It throws the game off too because the cleric serves a god, while the other players 'work' for themselves.

In my game, all the gods are chaotic, somewhat hideous ancient beings which at some point may have been men, or at least constructed out of parts of men. 'Law' is more of an idea, not really a god in my game. I like the idea from some of the appendix N books that magic comes from pure mathematics, which is how (in my game) MUs can cast spells from their mind without material components. This puts it above divine magic as I'm conceiving it in this game. The gods may be powerful but they are still physical which is why their magic involves material components and observances, another complicating thing which would give me more work and create cross-purposes within the party, while the cleric gathers resources or is commanded around by some god or demigod.

Cleric characters are always the ones who have the hardest time just slaying the bad guys too, which is what I want to see more of, instead of plying them for their life story and trying to make them do good or change. So there's another reason 

[waysoftheearth]

Jan 3, 2023 17:00:22 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

I've come to think the Paladin is what the Cleric should have been, except that the Paladin is overpowered and too specific. So I'd propose a class who follows a particular Deity or Order with a mix of spell casting and martial ability. A sort of Militant Monk character in place of the Cleric.

I like the notion of Templars. Or, as CM describes them: Religious Orders of Knighthood.

[tdenmark]

Jan 3, 2023 19:03:23 GMT -6 plethon said:

tdenmark I also considered replacing cleric with monk, I think it would be a good fit in a lot of games.

I'm trying to make my next game more black and white in general, for many reasons not least of which is getting a lot busier in my personal life.

Another complicating aspect of player clerics is having multiple sources of magic on the player side and the whole DMing job of worldbuilding the divine magic and the gods, it's easier to keep this locked away and rule by fiat there... Having a player who is a servant of a deity just opens the whole can of worms. It throws the game off too because the cleric serves a god, while the other players 'work' for themselves.

In my game, all the gods are chaotic, somewhat hideous ancient beings which at some point may have been men, or at least constructed out of parts of men. 'Law' is more of an idea, not really a god in my game. I like the idea from some of the appendix N books that magic comes from pure mathematics, which is how (in my game) MUs can cast spells from their mind without material components. This puts it above divine magic as I'm conceiving it in this game. The gods may be powerful but they are still physical which is why their magic involves material components and observances, another complicating thing which would give me more work and create cross-purposes within the party, while the cleric gathers resources or is commanded around by some god or demigod.

Cleric characters are always the ones who have the hardest time just slaying the bad guys too, which is what I want to see more of, instead of plying them for their life story and trying to make them do good or change. So there's another reason 

In LBB + GH
Fighters are general enough they could be vikings or samurai or zulu warriors or any kind of melee character you can imagine.
Magic-Users can be necromancers or witches or illusionists or whatever kind of spell-casting character you can imagine.
Thieves can be burglars or bandits or con artists or any kind of roguish character you can imagine.

But for some reason Clerics are clerics. A very specific kind of holy character. Instead of being specifically Van Helsing types, I like the idea of making them more general so they could be demon slayers, martial monks, holy knights, or any kind of religious order you can imagine.

This is in the spirit of OD&D. And also what I like about Swords & Wizardry. Campaign settings can then have their own specific class types appropriate to that world.

[waysoftheearth]

Fighters and M-Us are general purpose classes, at least in part, because the class name is a verb as well as a noun. So fighters fight, and magic users use magic and this verby implication is both broadly applicable and wide-open to interpretation.

But "cleric" is not a verb, and is the name of a specific role/occupation in the real world. So what the cleric class does is not implied by a general-purpose verby class name, and also is implied by a relatively specific view of what a real world catholic-styled cleric might do if dropped into a fantasy setting. This is inherently narrower than either the fighter or the magic-user.

From this perspective, perhaps "crusader" would have been better?
Then crusaders could crusade (in the same manner that fighters fight) without being limited to a very specific types of individuals (e.g., catholic-esque clerics). Players and refs could then fit the crusader class around all manner of imagined/invented "crusades" that wouldn't necessarily have to be analogs of the real-world, historical crusades (although they could be). Depending on the "crusade" this could push the need for details of Gods etc. back a bit. Admittedly, you'd still need details of the "crusade", but this would ideally be a more immediate/relevant world building tool than a distant pantheon of deities.

[Mordorandor]

Fighting-man and magic-user terms allow one to mimic/integrate with the HERO & SUPERHERO nomenclature framework of Chainmail, by enabling one to refer to each level (and its implied abilities) with a unique descriptor-name.

So when a character who is not a HERO walks out into battle, one can call him an apt title, like SWASHBUCKLER, and one would know instantly their capability. (Hard to keep straight sometimes with 10+ titles for just one class, but hey...!)

The correlate for the Cleric might be devoted-man; or, possibly to sync with the triadic alignment system, divisional-man, or stance-man. (Tongue in cheek, maybe, but textually pure.)

[tdenmark]

Jan 4, 2023 18:21:06 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

The correlate for the Cleric might be devoted-man; or, possibly to sync with the triadic alignment system, divisional-man, or stance-man. (Tongue in cheek, maybe, but textually pure.)

Unfortunately there is no really good generic title, Cleric is about as good as its going to get. Friar would probably be the best word to describe what they are, a religious man who can fight, but Friar just doesn't sound that cool. Paladin and Templar sounds really cool, but are not quite generic enough. Monk almost works. I've spent way too much of my life thinking about this.

[tdenmark]

Jan 4, 2023 18:41:26 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

Jan 4, 2023 18:21:06 GMT -6 Mordorandor said:

The correlate for the Cleric might be devoted-man; or, possibly to sync with the triadic alignment system, divisional-man, or stance-man. (Tongue in cheek, maybe, but textually pure.)

Unfortunately there is no really good generic title, Cleric is about as good as its going to get. Friar would probably be the best word to describe what they are, a religious man who can fight, but Friar just doesn't sound that cool. Paladin and Templar sounds really cool, but are not quite generic enough. Monk almost works. I've spent way too much of my life thinking about this.

And when I say religious man, what I really mean is someone who follows an Order, a way, a greater power, a philosophy, or a deity. It's a really good trope for a D&D class. Just no one word really encapsulates it.

[waysoftheearth]

Jan 4, 2023 16:07:19 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

From this perspective, perhaps "crusader" would have been better?
Then crusaders could crusade (in the same manner that fighters fight) without being limited to a very specific types of individuals (e.g., catholic-esque clerics). Players and refs could then fit the crusader class around all manner of imagined/invented "crusades" that wouldn't necessarily have to be analogs of the real-world, historical crusades (although they could be). Depending on the "crusade" this could push the need for details of Gods etc. back a bit. Admittedly, you'd still need details of the "crusade", but this would ideally be a more immediate/relevant world building tool than a distant pantheon of deities.

Another consideration is that the game comprises two fundamental systems: fighting and magic. Fighters are for fighting, and magic-users are for magic. Introduction of a third class is always going to be a bit awkward without a third fundamental system (e.g., see my post here). Without it's own fundamental system to excel in, or raison d'être, the above crusader could just as easily be a fighter (or a magic-user) on a crusade.

Given that, perhaps "turner" could be a more verby word for cleric? The turner then turns undead monsters in the same sense that a fighter fights monsters. Moreover, turning is its own unique system for the turner to excel in; its raison d'être. The problem for this class is that turning undead is so narrow a domain, and is not relevant in all situations. The turning undead system is more a sub-system than a full system, which again speaks to the narrow scope of the "turner" class.

[plethon]

There are also the secular 'clerics,' or people who received clerical status but were not in the church, I'm thinking specifically of teaching masters and students in medieval universities, at least the English ones. I think on the continent it went even farther and some masters and doctors were specifically allowed to wear armor, carry weapons, and employ a set number of bodyguards or slaves in addition to other rights.

But the clerical status just meant you were subject to the church's judicial system as opposed to the temporal one.

Before the 14th century, there were basically no "halls" or "colleges" formed at English unis, just individual teaching masters in their own lodgings. To be a student meant your name was inscribed on the roll of one master, and this meant you attended his lectures, but outside of that you lived on your own and had little restriction, which would work for an adventurer.

Additionally, most students and also most teachers had their eye the entire time on professional positions outside the university, there were no long tenures at this time, it just wasn't conceived of yet as a lifelong career, and the pay was low. This could also serve as an excuse for a cleric going out into the world.

[plethon]

Jan 4, 2023 19:18:06 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Jan 4, 2023 16:07:19 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

From this perspective, perhaps "crusader" would have been better?
Then crusaders could crusade (in the same manner that fighters fight) without being limited to a very specific types of individuals (e.g., catholic-esque clerics). Players and refs could then fit the crusader class around all manner of imagined/invented "crusades" that wouldn't necessarily have to be analogs of the real-world, historical crusades (although they could be). Depending on the "crusade" this could push the need for details of Gods etc. back a bit. Admittedly, you'd still need details of the "crusade", but this would ideally be a more immediate/relevant world building tool than a distant pantheon of deities.

Another consideration is that the game comprises two fundamental systems: fighting and magic. Fighters are for fighting, and magic-users are for magic. Introduction of a third class is always going to be a bit awkward without a third fundamental system (e.g., see my post here). Without it's own fundamental system to excel in, or raison d'être, the above crusader could just as easily be a fighter (or a magic-user) on a crusade.

Given that, perhaps "turner" could be a more verby word for cleric? The turner then turns undead monsters in the same sense that a fighter fights monsters. Moreover, turning is its own unique system for the turner to excel in; its raison d'être. The problem for this class is that turning undead is so narrow a domain, and is not relevant in all situations. The turning undead system is more a sub-system than a full system, which again speaks to the narrow scope of the "turner" class.

The third fundamental system could be something like 'society' or 'political' which would cover the fact that the cleric is essentially tied to some institution, but this is something that is more immediately relevant in the overworld, not in the underworld or in both like fighting and magic.