Can someone explain races being classes?

[Aus_Snow]

. . . anyone?

I'm not trying to start a fight about what edition is better, or anything of the kind. I simply don't understand what rationale there is behind "elf", "dwarf" etc. being classes and only classes, along with Fighter & Cleric or whatever. As in, you can have a Dwarf or a Fighter, but not a Dwarven Fighter. . . and so on.

There is probably a way that it makes sense, that just hasn't occurred to me, so if someone could be so kind as to point this way out, I'd be grateful. Thanks.

 

[Henry]

Sure -- it's a presupposition that ALL adventuring members of the race are going to possess certain traits in common; it's the ultimate in stereotyping.

It's not geared toward realism or verisimilitude, but more toward fantasy stereotypes as were common up through the 1970's. Know of any hobbits who COULDN'T be stealthy, or who could cast spells? Know of any elves in the literature of the time who COULDN'T fight or cast spells? There really weren't any, or if they were, they were less known.

Humans were represented as the "adaptable" breed - the ones who could be ANYTHING they wished, and this is one way to represent that. The other races were generally "staid in their ways", and so all Dwarves knew how to fight and dig tunnels, all Elves knew some magic, etc. Other races were not the focus, humans were.

Also keep in mind that this was mainly the case for the Basic/Expert/Companion/Master rules. The original OD&D rules expressed it as "Human/Dwarf/Elf Fighter," but races were still limited to what they could be.

 

[Reynard]

Henry's got the right of it. It doesn't mean that elver BD&D elf is a fighter magic user any more than every human is a member of one of the Four-Core. It means that there is an Archetypical Elf adventurer and the tone and direction of the game depends on the Archetypical Elf as much as it does the Fighter or Magic User.

Earlier editions of D&D were much more focused and the implicit genre was much more well defined. That this has changed isn't necessarily a bad thing (though sometimes I think "more sophisticated" is more accurately translated as "less fun") but it has changed. WotC has changed what D&D is and what it is good at. And while I like what D&D has become, I also kind of miss what it was.

 

[an_idol_mind]

In original D&D, you had three classes and four races. Humans could be any class. Elves could be fighting men or magic-users, and could switch classes between campaigns. Dwarves and hobbits could only be fighting men.

The races as classes thing got started partly because of that original system. If dwarves and hobbits have to be fighting men, why bother giving them classes at all? The only race with any real choice was humans. Even elves had such strict level limits that it was practically guaranteed that they would be fighters with magic. So the races as classes made sense for a while mainly due to the restrictions placed on demihumans in the original game. It wasn't until the classes expanded beyond the basic three that there was any need for a race/class combination.

 

[Lanefan]

In original D&D, you had three classes and four races. Humans could be any class. Elves could be fighting men or magic-users, and could switch classes between campaigns. Dwarves and hobbits could only be fighting men.

The races as classes thing got started partly because of that original system. If dwarves and hobbits have to be fighting men, why bother giving them classes at all? The only race with any real choice was humans. Even elves had such strict level limits that it was practically guaranteed that they would be fighters with magic. So the races as classes made sense for a while mainly due to the restrictions placed on demihumans in the original game. It wasn't until the classes expanded beyond the basic three that there was any need for a race/class combination.

That, and people wanted to try playing non-basic combinations. In 0D+D "Elf", "Dwarf", etc. were class names; that they were also races was nothing but confusing...

Lanefan

 

[WayneLigon]

There is no way that it makes 'sense' in the idea of 'here is a logical explanation of why all elves, everywhere, can both fight and cast spells', just like there was no logical sense in npc-only classes or level limits or why wizards could never use swords (unless you were an elf) or many of the other 'game-isms' of the time. It was purely a mean of trying to create a sense of balance in the game mechanics.

If you read through Dragon and a couple other magazines of the time you'll find the occassional article offering an explanation (read: rationalization) of the whys and wherefores but it all comes down to the idea of 'balance' and a pure game-mechanic means of attempting to acheive it.

 

[SuStel]

It's just a name. If instead of "dwarf" they'd called it "dwarf fighter," you wouldn't have a question about it.

Notice that the level titles are those of the fighter with "Dwarven" before them. Likewise for the other classes.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

To make a 3.5 parallel, I've always seen them a bit like racial paragon classes. It's a way of saying your character is "the stereotypical character for its race."

And WayneLigon, your wizard/sword comment is one of the main reasons that I've fully converted over to the UA system of weapon groups. That ... and the players are happy that they can take Weapon Focus (Weapon Group) and beenfit all the more. It really has added a level of individualism to the game that the original core rules make impossible without compromising your character. You should try them out for size if you like that kind of possibility. I love 'em and haven't noticed a balance issue once I got used to it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I think the assumption was also that humans were the star of the show, and the other races were supporting players.

Having said that, the system started being dismantled, even outside AD&D, pretty quickly, with more and more exceptions creeping in as more supplements were released.

 

[Gentlegamer]

. . . anyone?

I'm not trying to start a fight about what edition is better, or anything of the kind. I simply don't understand what rationale there is behind "elf", "dwarf" etc. being classes and only classes, along with Fighter & Cleric or whatever. As in, you can have a Dwarf or a Fighter, but not a Dwarven Fighter. . . and so on.

There is probably a way that it makes sense, that just hasn't occurred to me, so if someone could be so kind as to point this way out, I'd be grateful. Thanks.

Dwarves are Dwarven Fighters. Likewise, Elves are Fighter/Magic-users (the only allowed in the system). Very simple!

If the view is taken that non-human "races" are actually monster types, it makes sense this type of treatment. The Creature Crucible series contained many monster character classes (such as the Nagpa), with some starting at negative XP and 1st level being the monster's HD level as listed in its monster listing.