Your Position Races as Classes

[tombowings]

I'm gather some information for my upcoming Fantasy Adventure Game. Some previous discussion can be found at this thread) or at my blog (swashbucklershideout.blogspot.com/).

Which do you prefer: races and classes (LBB and AD&D) or races attached to classes (Holmes, Moldvay, and Mentzer). Why?

I look forward to your responses everyone.


ADMIN EDIT: Fixed the link.

[waysoftheearth]

Dec 31, 2009 0:27:07 GMT -6 tombowings said:

Which do you prefer: races as classes (LBB and AD&D) and races attached to classes (Holmes, Moldvay, and Mentzer). Why?

I'm not sure that choices are clear Tombowings, at least not to me

Should it read "Races and classes (LBB and AD&D), OR races attached to classes (Holmes, Moldvay, and Mentzer)."?

[tombowings]

To clarify. Do you prefer Dwarves to be a separate "class" of character or do you prefer to have "Dwarf Fighter" and "Dwarf Thieves"?

[Finarvyn]

An interesting question, since you have hit upon one of the key differences between OD&D (this board) and other versions of "classic" D&D (generally outside of the focus of this board).

I think that it turns out that both answers are pretty much the same thing in many ways. For example, by the book Dwarves could only be fighters (until they added the thief class later on) and so it didn't matter whether you played a "dwarf" or a "dwarf fighter" because the two were interchangible. Same for the hobbit. Elves were the only tricky ones, since they tended to have fighter and MU properties.

Of course, the addition of the thief has made this more complex. Now you get additonal options and complications. A dwarf now could be (1) a fighter or (2) a fighter-thief. If you decide to create a dwarf=class system you need to select one of the two models and then limit all dwarves to your choice. (Ditto with hobbit and elf.)

"Classic" D&D (Holmes, Moldvay/Cook, Mentzer)
1 Elf
2 Dwarf
3 Hobbit

OD&D (and later AD&D)
1 Elf fighter
2 Elf Magic-user
3 Elf thief
4 Elf fighter-MU
5 Elf fighter-thief
6 Elf MU-thief
7 Elf fighter-MU-thief
8 Dwarf fighter
9 Dwarf thief
10 Dwarf fighter-thief
11 Hobbit fighter
12 Hobbit thief
13 Hobbit fighter-thief

That's why I prefer to have race and class seperate, so that players have more control over the final product.

[Deleted]

The exact presentation isn't very important to me, either as a player or as a referee.

As a ref, I lean more toward the classic "dwarf" character (for instance) who is very much like a fighter over the "dwarf-fighter" because I tend to limit demi-humans in my campaigns in the same way the original rules do.

[Finarvyn]

I agree, dubeers, particularly from the point of view of the Referee. I find that 95% of the characters run tend to fit the stereotype anyway, but for that other 5% it's kind of nice to give players the extra options.

On the other hand, even if I ran a stereotype "dwarf class" in my campaign, if a player wanted to play some odd variation (perhaps adding extra thief abilities) I would find a way "on the fly" and make it work for him.

[Deleted]

Well, then ... we remain in agreement. I definitely buy into the "no reason you can't play anything you wish" line from the TLBB.

[philotomy]

I'm also in the "doesn't really matter" category, on this. I guess I slightly favor keeping race and class separate, but it's not something that I put a lot of weight on. I consider the classes to be examples of player archetypes or "typicals," rather than a "world definition." In other words, if there is an Elf class, I consider it a typical elven adventurer, not a binding definition of elves in the world (i.e. not every elf is going to follow those class rules). That's my only real beef with race-as-class: that it tends to be seen as a definition of the race, itself, and not just a typical adventurer of that race. That happens with classes, too, but perhaps less so. (For example, most adventures and supplements for B/X seem to assume that all elves have Fighter and MU abilities. And I'm sure we've all heard complaints about how it makes no sense that demi-humans have no clerics, as if they have no religion. That's the kind of thinking I dislike.)

[Deleted]

The first 10 minutes of "The Gamers: Dorkness Rising" is posted on the Dead Gentlemen website. I had to laugh because, in that section, one of the players informs the ref that he can't do that because "it isn't in the rules!".

I'm thankful I've got nothing but books full of guidelines on my shelves ...

[tombowings]

I got an idea last night. I'm not sure how I feel about it, but it's something different.

What is instead of races and classes being one and the same, have different classes for each race. For example...

Humans can advance as clerics, fighting-men, and magic-users

Dwarves can advance as defenders and engineers

Elves can advance as ... well, you get the idea.

A dwarven defender would be slightly different than a human fighting-man. This way each race is still completely separate, but also still has a could options for advancement.

The problem I see is that it would make the game less human-centric. Which it fine, but it promotes a slightly different feel than either OD&D or Classic D&D.

I haven't put any time into this, so feel free to shoot it down.

[waysoftheearth]

I think Finarvyn summed it up nicely. My group (and I) usually like to know those choices are available, even if we rarely take them up.


Tombowings, I played a similar idea to your suggestion in my campaign of this year just gone by.

In that game, PCs of all races could choose fighter, thief or (excepting Dwarfs) magic-user. Each race also had its own special class. Men had the Templar (a fighter/cleric class), Elves had the Warlock (a fighter/magic-user class, which I recently described on this board here), and Dwarfs had the Sapper (a fighter/thief class).

Using Finarvyn's lists for comparison, this provided more options than "classic D&D", but fewer options than "OD&D (and later AD&D)";

1 Elf fighter
2 Elf Magic-user
3 Elf thief
4 Elf warlock (fighter/MU)
5 Dwarf fighter
6 Dwarf thief
7 Dwarf sapper (fighter/thief)

(I had no Hobbits, so I've excluded them)


In retrospect I think this worked nicely -- by which I mean that the players were all happy with the options they had.

Interestingly, of three Elves played, there were two warlocks and one thief. Of six Men played, there were three templars and three fighters. There were also two Fauns played, a magic-user and a fighter, but no Dwarf PCs.

So, the special racial classes were popular choices

[Finarvyn]

Dec 31, 2009 12:54:32 GMT -6 philotomy said:

most adventures and supplements for B/X seem to assume that all elves have Fighter and MU abilities

I'll confess that this is one of the things I always hated about By The Book OD&D. "Well, I can fight today but not cast spells. Come back tomorrow." This just doesn't fit the elven image that I see, nor can I really explain it in a metagame sense. I much prefer for elves to advance slower but in both abilities simultaneously.

[tombowings]

That's encouraging, waysoftheearth. The more I think about having different races for different classes, the more I like it.

[snorri]

Dec 31, 2009 18:27:05 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I'll confess that this is one of the things I always hated about By The Book OD&D. "Well, I can fight today but not cast spells. Come back tomorrow." This just doesn't fit the elven image that I see, nor can I really explain it in a metagame sense. I much prefer for elves to advance slower but in both abilities simultaneously.

I read once again the quot in M&M, looking a little more carefully. Here's a few points of talmudic readings:

- The choice of class has one first effect: choose which for class will the Experience points will be counted during that adventure. It will also means which ability will be their prime during that adventure. [so, they can't share xp between their class during the same adventure - an adventure being going to the dungeon and coming back home]

- The way hit dices are rolled is not explicit, but my impression is that they could be stacked in the 3.x manner. So an elf F-M4 / M-U5 would have 4 +3 = 7 Hit dices.

- For combat, it's rather unclear, but the easiest thing is to take the best fighting capacity (so in the same exemple, the elf would fight as an hero) [unless you use the alternative system - which is simplier, as for the 3d first levels, the table is the same].

- No problem for armor, as by the book, magic-users can wear armor. They just can't use a magic armor, but precisely, elves can. So no need to drop the armor when acting as a magic-user.

- "Thus, they gain the benefits of both classes and may use both weaponry and spells.", so it seems aleves are not limited to daggers when acting as magic-users [especially important when you use the weapon rank as in Chainmail Man-to-Man combat].

- Also note an important "rational" behind. Acting as a magic-user, in this method, means the character went to his spell book and memorized some spells. If he didn't, he's a fighting-man... (the only problem is that, theorically, a magic-user get the spells in mind coming back every day, as long as he didn't chanegd them while he's in front of his spell book).

So, no elf problem...

[Deleted]

Dec 31, 2009 17:21:38 GMT -6 tombowings said:

I haven't put any time into this, so feel free to shoot it down.

Hey, it is your game ... play it your way.

[tombowings]

Dec 31, 2009 20:43:55 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

Dec 31, 2009 17:21:38 GMT -6 tombowings said:

I haven't put any time into this, so feel free to shoot it down.

Hey, it is your game ... play it your way.

Just brain storming right now.

[Deleted]

Dec 31, 2009 12:54:32 GMT -6 philotomy said:

I much prefer for elves to advance slower but in both abilities simultaneously.

This was my solution way back in the 1970's. Since the elf combined two classes, I simply added the XP required for both fighter and magic-user and that became the elf XP progression. I coupled that with rolling d6 for HP and allowed the elf to function in both classes simultaneously.

(sorry, however, to all the elf fetishists: I left the level limits in place! ;D)

[Deleted]

Dec 31, 2009 20:47:40 GMT -6 tombowings said:

Dec 31, 2009 20:43:55 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

Hey, it is your game ... play it your way.

Just brain storming right now.

Well, in that case (FWIW), this seems as if it is a workable idea to me.

Edited to add:

You've touched upon what seems a reasonable compromise. Allow demi-humans to advance as certain classes, but be limited in certain ways.

One approach I tried was Dwarf fighters, gnome illusionists, hobbit thieves ... all were allowed unlimited advancement in that class. Multi-classed could advance without limit in that class only but (as in AD&D) they were required to continue to divide earned XP between the two classes.

Elves were a special case ... they were allowed to advance as MUs only, though they did retain the ability to employ magic spells in armor and, after they stopped advancing as fighters, gained only 1 HP per level.

This approach allowed the demi-humans some utility at higher levels but still retained some drawback. I did return to an approach a bit closer to the rules as written but the idea did work quite well.

I hope this provides some inspiration to you in your quest to make the game your own.

[tombowings]

Thanks a lot to all of the great responses, everyone.

I'm still working things out in my head but the idea seems promising.

[jjarvis]

My preference depends on the campaign. Some campaigns race as class works well, in others it doesn't. There is also the seldom explored third option- a different set of classes for each race.
Humans- Fighter, Cleric, Thif, MU
Dwarf- Shield Brother, Pilferer, Runesmith
Halfling- Burglar, Scout
Elf- Eldritch Knight, Rake, mystic

[delta]

Dec 31, 2009 0:27:07 GMT -6 tombowings said:

Which do you prefer: races and classes (LBB and AD&D) or races attached to classes (Holmes, Moldvay, and Mentzer). Why?

Separate races and classes, as in LBBs & AD&D. I very much like the elegance of a small number of races & classes (4 each) that the players can mix-and-match to provide a relatively large number of options (~16).

I feel that's at least partly related to allowing multiclassing, which allows you to mix-and-match the core class abilities to simulate a lot of different myth/pulp literary types. Again, pretty good in LBBs and AD&D, but too restrictive for me in the BXCMI line.