Supplement I: races and classes

[rabindranath72]

Sorry if this has been addressed elsewhere, feel free to point me to the relevant thread if this is a duplicate.

So, I was reading Supplement I, and I got a bit confused by what classes are actually available to what races, and in which combinations.

In particular:
1) Can Dwarves be just Thieves, or they can only be Fighter/Thieves?
2) It seems Elves can be Thieves only; but can they be Fighters or Magic-users only, too?
3) Same for Half-elves. They can also be F/MU/Clerics, though the strange sentence about their "human side" is self-contradicting since humans can be Clerics.
4) Slightly unrelated: the errata to Supplement I gives Dwarves +1 to hit and -1 to AC against Giant Class opponents. Is the class defined somewhere? (I only found a reference to bugbears being of this class).

Since Holmes mentions that Elves, Dwarves and Halflings can be Thieves, and that Elves Fighters and Magic-users appear in the Holmes versions of B1 and B2; it would seem the same would apply to OD&D?

Thanks in advance,
Antonio

Thanks in advance,

[coffee]

Well, this is part of the problem we run into with Greyhawk.

You have to remember, these books were all written as guidelines and not hard-and-fast rules.

1) Sure, Dwarves can be just Thieves. The relevant section says: "Dwarves can work simultaneously as fighters and thieves..." -- it doesn't say that they MUST do.

2) Elves can be Fighter/Magic-User/Thieves, or they can be just Thieves. But depending on how you interpret Men & Magic (or re-interpret it in the light of Greyhawk), they already could be Fighter/Magic-Users, or fighters, or magic-users. The additional rules don't prohibit what they could previously be.

3) Yeah, that one has mystified us for years (in some cases, decades!)

4) Not as such. Take a look at the encounter tables in Volume III, on page 18; the one in the lower right hand corner is labeled "Giant Types". (although I think we can assumed that Gnomes, Dwarves and Elves don't rightly fit)


Welcome to the boards, and the glorious confusion that is Greyhawk!

[rabindranath72]

Aug 12, 2010 15:21:33 GMT -6 coffee said:

Well, this is part of the problem we run into with Greyhawk.

You have to remember, these books were all written as guidelines and not hard-and-fast rules.

1) Sure, Dwarves can be just Thieves. The relevant section says: "Dwarves can work simultaneously as fighters and thieves..." -- it doesn't say that they MUST do.

2) Elves can be Fighter/Magic-User/Thieves, or they can be just Thieves. But depending on how you interpret Men & Magic (or re-interpret it in the light of Greyhawk), they already could be Fighter/Magic-Users, or fighters, or magic-users. The additional rules don't prohibit what they could previously be.

3) Yeah, that one has mystified us for years (in some cases, decades!)

4) Not as such. Take a look at the encounter tables in Volume III, on page 18; the one in the lower right hand corner is labeled "Giant Types". (although I think we can assumed that Gnomes, Dwarves and Elves don't rightly fit)


Welcome to the boards, and the glorious confusion that is Greyhawk!

Thanks for the answers!
Some comments:
1) From a logical point of view, I don't see the sentence "Dwarves can work simultaneously as fighters and thieves" as including the possibility of thieves only (which is explicitly stated in the Elf case, for example).
I interpret it as: Dwarves can already be Fighters; furthermore they can work simultaneously as fighters and thieves. That is, as an added multiclass possibility (much like clerics).

2) I agree the point is whether Elves could previously be fighter or magic-users only.

3) cool

4) Very useful, thanks! I wonder how elves, dwarves and gnomes went there...but then, what are kobolds doing into the list anyway?

Actually, I am mining OD&D for some expansion of my Mentzer D&D games. The first (obvious) thing that came to mind is to allow different race/class combinations, and perhaps adding more abilities (like the giant class opponents for dwarves, or the elf proficiency with bow and sword).

Cheers,
Antonio

[coffee]

Aug 13, 2010 2:46:09 GMT -6 rabindranath72 said:

1) From a logical point of view, I don't see the sentence "Dwarves can work simultaneously as fighters and thieves" as including the possibility of thieves only (which is explicitly stated in the Elf case, for example).
I interpret it as: Dwarves can already be Fighters; furthermore they can work simultaneously as fighters and thieves. That is, as an added multiclass possibility (much like clerics).

4) Very useful, thanks! I wonder how elves, dwarves and gnomes went there...but then, what are kobolds doing into the list anyway?

Actually, I am mining OD&D for some expansion of my Mentzer D&D games. The first (obvious) thing that came to mind is to allow different race/class combinations, and perhaps adding more abilities (like the giant class opponents for dwarves, or the elf proficiency with bow and sword).

Cheers,
Antonio

Hey, happy to help.

In regard to point 1, above, I'm reading it as "can" as in "is allowed to". The earlier text, introducing Thieves, indicates (to me anyway) that Dwarves can be Thieves, i.e., single classed Thieves. Maybe I'm wrong there, but that's how I read it. So that colored my response to you.

As far as Kobolds go, they're the lowest level Giant-class monster, like Skeletons are the lowest level undead. This works out great for low level dwarves, who would likely be killed immediately by real Giants.

[snorri]

I agree with Cofee regarding the "giant class": this could apply to any creature listed in that class in U&WA. But, I would include gnomes, dwarves and elves. It seems a gygaxian take on Norse mythology, where these kinds are related. Kobolds and even the goblin races don't seems so far from the dwarves and gnomes, and after all, if gnome and trolls can crossbreed, why shouldn't they be in the same giant class ?

[James Maliszewski]

Aug 13, 2010 9:20:25 GMT -6 coffee said:

In regard to point 1, above, I'm reading it as "can" as in "is allowed to". The earlier text, introducing Thieves, indicates (to me anyway) that Dwarves can be Thieves, i.e., single classed Thieves. Maybe I'm wrong there, but that's how I read it. So that colored my response to you.

It's definitely ambiguous, especially when you consider that both elves and hobbits are explicitly allowed to be single-class thieves, so one might well assume that dwarves can as well. Of course, Greyhawk is a strange supplement in many ways; it assumes certain interpretations of the LBBs that, while valid, are hardly uncontroversial, such as the way elves combine their fighting man and magic-user abilities. As with everything in OD&D, this is another case where there's no right answer except the one you choose for your own campaign.

[coffee]

Exactly.

Gygax has said, time and again, that the "rules" were merely guidelines and that he expected people to make their own games from them.

[snorri]

About dwarves, I drafted a 8-pages help guide. You'll find:

- The LBB's + Chainmail dwarf

- The Greyhawk Dwarf fighter and Dwarf Thief (still including Chainmail)

- The Greyhawk Dwarf Fighter / Thief and its awfully complicated tables*.

- A proposal for a simplier, easier Dwarf race-as-a-class for OD&D, drawing features from the fighter / thief. I think this one is nice.

www.scribd.com/doc/35962335/ODD-Dwarves

I confess stealing bits of a Greyharp earlier work. How do a thief class without stealing a bit?

* I discovered a Dwarf Fighter / Thief don't have the benefit of dwarves bonus to thieves abilities - at least I understand it like this.

[coffee]

Very nice, Snorri! Have an exalt for that.

[Deleted]

Nice one Snorri. Heard about this on the Underdark Gazette BTW .

[arcadayn]

Can someone else post this again? You have to pay for access or upload a document to sribd.

[kesher]

I have it somewhere on my hard drive---just pm me with an email address and I'd be happy to send it your way.