Can someone explain races being classes?

[pawsplay]

A Class is simply a specific cluster of abilities that describes what achetype a character fills. At one time, different races were conceived of as classes. Later, race was created as a separate module, and members of the various races were given the right to participate in a larger extent in other archetypes.

 

[Remathilis]

Mind you, not ALL dwarves were fighter-equvilants, just every ADVENTURING dwarf was. Many were simply 0-level commoners with infravision and stoneworking skills. Same with elves and halflings.

Race-as-class, like most of B/E/M/C/I D&D, was designed to handle a one-dimensional concept of character generation. Fighters were strong and had all weapons and armors cuz that was the the stereotype. Clerics wielding blunt weapons cuz thats what clerics did. In one regard, it was extremely limiting because you were very limited in how you express yourself MECHANICALLY, but still have alot of freedom on how to RP your character (noble knight or horrid ravager?) In a way, it WAS simpler because it was supposed to be; those seeking true customization and additional development of character were supposed to play AD&D. (with rules like race seperate, multi-classing, and proficiencies).

B/E/M/C/I has a certain charm about it that is enduring. If you want a game that is simple and VERY stereotypical, its wonderful. If you desire any manner of "mold breaking" you'll be frustrated by it.

 

[Aus_Snow]

*Phew* . . . well, that was quite painless. Thanks, people.

I feel that I kind of "get it" now. Sure, it's still not my preferred way of doing things, but that's not why I was asking in the first place. And I don't mind at all what ways other people choose to play these games - that's their prerogative.

 

[Johnnie Freedom!]

And I don't mind at all what ways other people choose to play these games - that's their prerogative.

How big of you.

 

[Nyaricus]

How big of you.

Troll much?

He was just saying that if people like 0D&D, then that's cool - but it's not his thing. Is that a problem?

 

[WayneLigon]

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.

Well, it was more a comment on the original way of doing things. Before 3E, a Wizard couldn't use a sword. Not 'use it poorly', he simply couldn't use it; there were no rules for it. It was assumed he was so bad at it, it was like using a peice of string.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Well, it was more a comment on the original way of doing things. Before 3E, a Wizard couldn't use a sword. Not 'use it poorly', he simply couldn't use it; there were no rules for it. It was assumed he was so bad at it, it was like using a peice of string.

Which is patently not true, as 2E had Weapon Proficiencies that could be learned by every class, and non-proficient use of a weapon meant, for the wizard, a -5 penalty on his attack roll, a system that was taken directly from 1E. That still enabled the wizard to carry around a sword, and even attack with it, he simply wasn't that good with it if he hadn't allocated a proficiency point on "Sword". The only D&D version that had magic-users unable to use swords was Basic D&D, and only until Mentzer introduced Weapon Proficiency and Weapon Masters.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Troll much?

He was just saying that if people like 0D&D, then that's cool - but it's not his thing. Is that a problem?

Thanks, man. That pretty much sums it up.

 

[Nyaricus]

Exactly - it didn't mean anything more than it's face value. Some people... anything to start something....

 

[Wik]

Exactly - it didn't mean anything more than it's face value. Some people... anything to start something....

What's that supposed to mean?

You wanna fight about it?