Race as Class

[Finarvyn]

I nearly put this in Men & Magic, but decided that perhaps it was more of a Philosophy issue since it's not strictly BTB OD&D. It occurs to me that the biggest thing that makes OD&D different from B/X D&D is the whole "race as class" issue.

In OD&D you picked a class, then selected a race. OD&D gave some limitations as to which combinations could exist, and gave some level limits for the combinations. Thus you could have, for example, an elf who was a magic-user only but had no real fighting prowess.

B/X D&D takes a different approach by making "Elf" and "Dwarf" and "Hobbit" a class of its own. This means that all elves tend to have the same class skills and such so that all elves (for example) would combine spell casting with some measure of combat ability.

Without slamming one edition in favor of the other, I would be interested in hearing opinions on what are the advantages or disadvantages of doing race and class as individual things compared to a combined race/class.

[thorswulf]

I guess I prefer allowing a race and class. Mainly this is due to the variey of choice. I can make a case for an expanded racial class, however it is not like the b/x edition. What I like was printed in an early issue of The Dragon and concerned the Dwarves as a class. It essentially expanded the class to allow higher level characters. The arguement being that Dwarves were obviously much more stalwart fighters in fiction, and had a hierarchy of leadership. In a nutshell it allowed Dwarven PC's the chance to become lord level characters. the article also went on to add a few new racial abilities like how much smithing a character could do, and an innate ability to judge value of gems and gold. Simple, but I liked it.

[Stonegiant]

In B/X you can be a Dwarf (goes to level 12), OD&D you can be a dwarf fighter up to level 6; An elf goes to level 10, in OD&D an elf fighter/magic-user can go to 4/6 level; The B/X halfling can go to 8th and the OD&D Hobbit fighter goes to 4th level. Moldvay appears to have consolidated the race class choices into one package, his level maxes are double those of the Dwarf and Halfling and the Elf's is achieved by adding the two class levels together. I never looked at them as race as a class but rather a consolidation of the players choices from the LLBs. Until the Greyhawk supplement Demi-Humans did not really have a choice in what class they were and Moldvay seemed to have carried on in that tradition especially when you consider that the demi-humans and the humans share the same level titles.

[Deleted]

Coming from an R.C. D&D perspective, I tend to support the "Race as Class" motif. It keeps the game simple, IMO. Since the D&D game I run is an amalgam of both OD&D & R.C. D&D, & since I only have the 3 LBB, I stick with the "Race as Class" system. I do work with players in character concept, though. If someone wants to play a Dwarf w/Clerical healing abilities, I allow them to substitute experience levels for "spellcasting" levels; same with elves; I re-worked the elf class many years ago to reflect their wild & primitive nature IMC (substituting Magic-User spells for Druid spells, with a few clerical spells thrown in to the mix as well - & so on & so forth. This system works really well & keeps everyone happy. I never have any complaints from my players, & since my group & I come from a varied RPG background, they know what they got themselves into. I'm also re-starting my Star Wars campaign, so there is PLENTY of racial & class choices to slake their thirst there.

[jrients]

I started with Moldvay and have a clear bias, but one of the reasons I like racial classes (apart from nostalgia) is that it reduces the number of steps needed and decision required to get a character ready to play.

[ffilz]

I was a bit surprised the first time I re-read OD&D a few years back. I don't think we have ever really played OD&D. We started with Holmes Basic and played that just a few times. Then we got into Chivalry and Sorcery. I got the AD&D Players Handbook for Christmas of 1978 and soon purchased a Monster Manual and then ran a game with that.

On a re-read, I was suprised to find that in Men & Magic, there was no choice of class for elves, dwarves, and halflings, though the rules for elves were (are) rather confusing. Greyhawk just adds the option of multi-class with thief or thief exclusively to the existing options and proposes NPC clerics (who are then fighter/clerics).

AD&D really expanded the class options, allowing many combinations and allowing some races access to classes beyond the core four.

It's not surpising that the later B/X and BECM lines chose to have racial classes.

I've got mixed feelings. In some ways, I think race as class is overly restrictive, but I feel that the way D&D has trended towards more and more choice for race and class that it has become harder and harder to make a human-centric game.

Because of this attitude, my for my upcomming OD&D campaign, the only choices are human fighter, human magic-user, human cleric, human paladin, human thief, dwarf fighter, elf fighter/magic-user, halfling fighter, and halfling thief.

I am not including druid and ranger because I want a dungeon centric campaign. I'm not including monks because I've never felt fit in. And I've never liked illusionists. I'm only allowing halfling thieves (and not unlimited level either) because I'm developing a campaign setup where the demi-humans are almost exclusively neutral and not into human style city living (and thus don't have a thieving mindset), halflings do have the option because they have been the most a part of human ways.

Frank

[Finarvyn]

Neat ideas so far, and no edition bashing. That's what I love about this group!

Since I started with OD&D, it only seemed natural to make race different from class, but I can certainly see how it simplifies things to make them blend together. What would be nice is to see a better "elf only" spell list, however, because elves as generic spellcasters just seems ... wrong somehow.

[Stonegiant]

This was addressed at several sites in the past, one of the best suggestions I've read in my travels is to have elves cast spells from the Druid spell list since it jives with their woodland motif. An added bonus to having the elves cast from the Druid spell list is that it explains why elves don't have clerics because every elf is a quasi-cleric due to the Druid spell list.

[Lord Gwydion]

I started out with Mentzer, and played a little AD&Dish D&D (basically Mentzer rules for most everything, but the PHB for character options) a few times.

Back then, I always thought the options provided by AD&D to be superior because of the variety of characters it allowed for (more classes, more races, etc.).

Anymore, I stick to the Moldvay/Mentzer race classes.

I do so for two reasons, simplicity and to keep humans dominant.

You've got three choices for a Fighter, depending on what ability scores you've got and what special abilities/level limits you choose to accept.

You've got one choice for everything else (including the "multiclass fighter-mage" option in the Elf). Three of those other four options are human only. I like that.

There's a mindset with more modern games (not a bash, as it has its place, and can be fun) that more crunchy options lead to more diverse characters.

In my experience, it's the simple version that leads to more diverse characters, as the RP comes to the fore to differentiate one character of a certain class from another.

The load of crunchy options tends to lead to analysis of "what's the best I can do with these numbers" rather than "what can I do to distinguish my sword and board fighter from Bob's?"

[coffee]

lordgwydion said:

There's a mindset with more modern games (not a bash, as it has its place, and can be fun) that more crunchy options lead to more diverse characters.

In my experience, it's the simple version that leads to more diverse characters, as the RP comes to the fore to differentiate one character of a certain class from another.

The load of crunchy options tends to lead to analysis of "what's the best I can do with these numbers" rather than "what can I do to distinguish my sword and board fighter from Bob's?"

Yes! Absolutely. You have summed this up so perfectly, I can't add anything to it. So have an exalt.

[evreaux not logged in]

As a dedicated DM of B/X D&D, I like race as class for two main reasons (somewhat touched upon already in the thread):

1. Keeps human front and center as the most diverse, flexible, and (eventually) dominant race. They are the true masters of fighting, magic, godly power, and sneakiness.

2. Helps me maintain something of a mythological/fairy tale aspect to demi-humans; there is still a bit of inhuman mystery. In other words, in my campaign, dwarves are short, capable, clever, earth spirit sorts instead of individual, specialized members of a human-analog society. To some extent, it preserves demi-humans as archetypal monsters that can be played by players, as opposed to highly differentiated species with largely the same professional options as humans.

[foster1941]

I've got no problem at all with the OD&D boxed set's de facto race-classes (dwarfs and hobbits can only be fighters, all elves are both fighters and mages) but once you add in the thief class the idea goes out the window for me -- I just can't buy the idea of the thief as human-only (especially since, at least in supplement I, humans make, on average, the worst thieves). If the thief class is allowed in one of my games (which is by no means a given) then it's going to be open to all 4 races.

[korgoth]

evreaux said:

As a dedicated DM of B/X D&D, I like race as class for two main reasons (somewhat touched upon already in the thread):

1. Keeps human front and center as the most diverse, flexible, and (eventually) dominant race. They are the true masters of fighting, magic, godly power, and sneakiness.

2. Helps me maintain something of a mythological/fairy tale aspect to demi-humans; there is still a bit of inhuman mystery. In other words, in my campaign, dwarves are short, capable, clever, earth spirit sorts instead of individual, specialized members of a human-analog society. To some extent, it preserves demi-humans as archetypal monsters that can be played by players, as opposed to highly differentiated species with largely the same professional options as humans.

Excellent. I agree.

This is also why I don't like demi-human thieves. A thief suggests certain social conditions that I do not associate with demi-human societies... I prefer not to think of them as human societies inhabited by pointy-eared humans. I prefer to think of them as somehow more tied to magic, or fate, or the earth, etc. That's why they are special (spiffy powers) but also more restricted in options and advancement than men.

If they were just super-long-lived men, they should rule the world. Imagine your typical genius Elf loremaster who has 500 years to spend on his profession. Elves should have space shuttles and cruise missiles at that point. It makes it more believable for me if these beings are not like us, down to the roots of their being.

[Zulgyan]

Is OD&D without supplements really not Race as Class??

Dwarves can only choose one class. Same for hobbits. Elf have those weird rules to swap between fighter and wizard.

So in practice, OD&D without supplements is a Race as Class game IMHO.

[dwayanu]

Setting aside the Supplement 1 options, an Elf "class" can simplify book-keeping and other considerations. Perhaps Holmes had some such arrangement in mind when specifying (IIRC) d6 hit dice for elves.

[ffilz]

Evraux and Korgoth,

Yea, that's something along the lines of where I'm going.

T. Foster (I assume aka foster1941...)'s post in this thread and another post are what convinced me of this point of view, though I disagree with Foster about thieves.

My difference on demi-human thieves is that I just don't see them fitting, except for halflings, and then I want a limit there so that even though a halfling thief has lots of advantages over a human thief, ultimately, human thieves win out in the end.

Is all of this going to make people less willing to play demi-humans? Sure. I think it will ultimately be good for the game. I've always appreciated that my RuneQuest campaigns have been dominated by humans (not because humans are superior, but because in RQ, the non-humans, at least the ones I allowed, were just too weird for most players). I've run other games (AD&D, 3e, and several others) where people tended to run a race that was most suited to the class and abilities they wanted, resulting in 1 or 2 humans in a party alongside a menagerie of other races.

Do I need race as class to achieve that? Not really, but with a plan to just use 5 classes, it seems that putting much choice in would not help things (though level limits would still tend to guide folks towards humans).

Frank

[tgamemaster1975]

I don't go for the race is a class thing I like keeping them separate. I tend to agree that the whole thief thing for unlimited levels doesn't really fit demi-humans particularly well. I like to split some of the thief skills off as scout skills - things that fighter can do, some things that I let clerics do and some that I let magic users do.

[James Maliszewski]

After years of playing AD&D and its descendants, it's very hard for me to accept race as class. I think it's a bit more limiting than I would like and I am already setting myself up for an uphill climb as it is to convince my players to return to OD&D. Throwing in this approach on top of it all would probably be too much for them to handle!

That said, I am also convinced that humanocentrism is one of the key tenets of what makes D&D the game that it is. While I would opt for demihuman class and level restrictions in my own campaigns, the class as race approach is simply a different solution to the same problem, namely how to promote humanocentric fantasy without simply disallowing the playing of demihumans. I think they're both equally valid, with the race as class, I think, being the "stronger" of the two in terms of promoting humanocentrism, since it not only reduces the power of demihuman PCs (which the other approach does as well) but also reduces demihuman PCs to a narrower range of archetypes, which further limits their attractiveness in game play.

[dwayanu]

I tend to stick with the original trilogy, so "race as class" is how it works out in practice however the Elf gets treated. AD&D is another game entirely!

[calithena]

I'm for it, tonight at least. If you want to have races with multiple exemplars, make multiple classes for the race.

My reason, such as it is, is that once you have race/class combos you have minimaxing (dwarves do better as....). Might as well have skills and feats and such at that point.

[crimhthanthegreat]

I generally follow the 3LBBs and I don't usually use thieves, but when I do I usually limit thieves to humans. Again I don't usually use thieves but spread some not all of the skills out among the classes.

[James Maliszewski]

calithena said:

My reason, such as it is, is that once you have race/class combos you have minimaxing (dwarves do better as....). Might as well have skills and feats and such at that point.

I'll grant that it's been years since I played OD&D in any form, so maybe I'm missing something. I certainly don't intend to stir up controversy, so feel free to let me know if I've done so inadvertently. However, I find it hard to credit the notion that having both races and classes is tantamount to including skills and feats.

Might you be able to elaborate why this is the case or at least point me toward something that might help me better understand this?

Thanks.

[calithena]

More interacting parts = more emphasis on character build. This is not 'bad' in any general sense but for the kind of play I prefer I'd really rather have players not even get started in that direction. The 'might as well have skills and feats' is hyperbole but it indicates that once you start making judgments like "elf fighter with bow gets a better bonus", or "I want to be a thief, what race gets me the best open locks and remove traps?" you've left behind the 'pure visualization' of the character and started looking for systematic advantages instead. I don't want my players going that way.

[badger2305]

This discussion is fascinating.

I quite distinctly recall from the earliest days of gaming that a common house rule among my gaming friends was to eliminate the restrictions on races for certain classes. It wasn't consistent - some simply left it open to races to take any class, while others made it possible for demi-humans to advance in levels, but but take double the experience of humans to do so.

And most of my gaming friends were about one orbit out from the Blackmoor players, and another was a player in Greyhawk. I guess I've never really felt like restrictions on race and class were necessary to my OD&D. I might rethink that a little, but race as class will always seem weird to me.

[James Maliszewski]

calithena said:

More interacting parts = more emphasis on character build.

It's interesting you should say that. Now, maybe this is a post for a new thread, but one of the things I've come to realize is that (in my experience anyway), the notion of a "character build" is a very modern consideration. That's not to say there weren't always players who did "crunch the numbers" and try to create the most probabilistically ideal character they could; there certainly were. However, they were a minority of a minority back in the day and (again, in my experience) most D&D players typically chose their character class/race for considerations having more to do with roleplaying or general interest than creating the "best" character.

I'd go far as to say that the concerns you have -- and I think they're valid ones -- are at least partially an artifact of our changing perception of RPG mechanics and partially a result of the hobby's changing perception of the role of the GM. As gaming has become more about player "empowerment," both mechanically and thematically, it's made it hard to look back on earlier games where these concepts don't exist and view them "naively."

The appeal of OD&D (to me anyway) is not just in playing according to earlier iterations of the D&D rules but in re-capturing the gaming world "before the Fall," back when the social contract between players and DM was still in force and game mechanics were aids to play rather than "impartial" arbiters of what does and does not happen in a game.

Anyway, I've rambled enough and I apologize for that. My only point is that, while I fully understand the appeal of race as class, I don't see it as essential to "OD&D-ness" and indeed think that at least some of its appeal is a reaction to the results its abandonment ultimately created rather than the inherent qualities of the concept itself.

Sorry, I have a hard time shutting up.

[James Maliszewski]

badger2305 said:

I guess I've never really felt like restrictions on race and class were necessary to my OD&D. I might rethink that a little, but race as class will always seem weird to me.

I'm in a similar but not identical boat. I don't see race as class as weird at all, but neither do I see it as essential to OD&D. Like yourself, I remember lots of house ruling to allow players to play straight elf magic-users rather than fighting man/magic-user combos, for example. I'm firmly of the school that house rules that common indicate a gamer-y consensus fidei and should be taken very seriously. They can be rejected, sure, and often should be, but only after careful consideration of the ramifications.

[badger2305]

jamesm said:

calithena said:

More interacting parts = more emphasis on character build.

It's interesting you should say that. Now, maybe this is a post for a new thread, but one of the things I've come to realize is that (in my experience anyway), the notion of a "character build" is a very modern consideration. That's not to say there weren't always players who did "crunch the numbers" and try to create the most probabilistically ideal character they could; there certainly were. However, they were a minority of a minority back in the day and (again, in my experience) most D&D players typically chose their character class/race for considerations having more to do with roleplaying or general interest than creating the "best" character.

I'd go far as to say that the concerns you have -- and I think they're valid ones -- are at least partially an artifact of our changing perception of RPG mechanics and partially a result of the hobby's changing perception of the role of the GM. As gaming has become more about player "empowerment," both mechanically and thematically, it's made it hard to look back on earlier games where these concepts don't exist and view them "naively."

The appeal of OD&D (to me anyway) is not just in playing according to earlier iterations of the D&D rules but in re-capturing the gaming world "before the Fall," back when the social contract between players and DM was still in force and game mechanics were aids to play rather than "impartial" arbiters of what does and does not happen in a game.

Anyway, I've rambled enough and I apologize for that. My only point is that, while I fully understand the appeal of race as class, I don't see it as essential to "OD&D-ness" and indeed think that at least some of its appeal is a reaction to the results its abandonment ultimately created rather than the inherent qualities of the concept itself.

Sorry, I have a hard time shutting up.

No, no, you're right on here. Keep preaching it. Amen!

I really like "re-capturing the gaming world "before the Fall," back when the social contract between players and DM was still in force and game mechanics were aids to play" - absolutely. Yes. That metaphor works for me on a very deep level. Thank you. (and have an Exalt, too)

[James Maliszewski]

badger2305 said:

[That metaphor works for me on a very deep level.

Thank you.

This is something that I feel increasingly strongly about. As the years have dragged on and RPGs have "evolved," I've detected a change and, until recently, I wasn't able to put my finger on what the change was. Obviously, mechanical elements have changed, but what drove those changes? Why did RPGs change in the way they have? The rough conclusion I've come to is that games have become more complex and comprehensive in order to fill the void left by the collapse of the trust players once placed in their GM. The ideal now is not a game master but a facilitator or adjudicator (not even a referee).

Just why the trust we once regularly placed in GMs has collapsed I couldn't say. I think there's an interesting story to be told there. Not being a professional sociologist, I wouldn't even begin to know how to delve into the whys and wherefores of the matter.

[korgoth]

jamesm said:

badger2305 said:

[That metaphor works for me on a very deep level.

Thank you.

This is something that I feel increasingly strongly about. As the years have dragged on and RPGs have "evolved," I've detected a change and, until recently, I wasn't able to put my finger on what the change was. Obviously, mechanical elements have changed, but what drove those changes? Why did RPGs change in the way they have? The rough conclusion I've come to is that games have become more complex and comprehensive in order to fill the void left by the collapse of the trust players once placed in their GM. The ideal now is not a game master but a facilitator or adjudicator (not even a referee).

Just why the trust we once regularly placed in GMs has collapsed I couldn't say. I think there's an interesting story to be told there. Not being a professional sociologist, I wouldn't even begin to know how to delve into the whys and wherefores of the matter.

That is most insightful. I'm not sure how to explaing the causes either. Definitely something to think about. The first question I would have is whether it is a result of a change in Gamerdom, in contemporary culture, both or neither.

Well, here's to pre-lapsarian gaming!

[calithena]

Players who are experienced gamers often like the shiny. And it can be fun - I don't deny that making a well-built Champions (where 'build' came in BTW) or D&D 3 character is a pleasurable thing. I just feel like ultimately it gets in the way for me more than it helps.

I agree with you James that Race = Class is not essential to D&D or to capturing the feel you want to capture. Giving people a few meaningful character-defining choices is actually really good for 'pre-lapsarian' gaming. However, it does put the designer/homebrewing DM in an awkward position - either you perfectly balance to make the choice neutral or follow the imaginative material and allow unbalance, in which case the build/minimaxing temptation is always there.

I have a lot to say about the changing philosophy in game play and design but it's for another thread and maybe for another time altogether.