dwarf as a class

[Rex Blunder]

What's better than wild speculation? Wild speculation backed up by A SHRED OF EVIDENCE!

My crazy guess: D&D Next will reintroduce "dwarf", "elf" and "halfling" as classes, along with wizard, rogue, fighter, and cleric, so in "core" we'll have the same stable of 7 classes that we had in Basic D&D.

My evidence? Legends and Lore seems to be where Mearls floats 5e ideas. Check out this passage from the L&L article Head of the Class:

You could even collapse race down into the core options: The dwarf could be expressed as a core class, a fighter progression that focuses on durability, defense, and expertise with an axe or hammer. The core elf uses the multiclass rules to combine fighter and wizard, and the core halfling uses a preset rogue advancement chart. Choosing race could be part of the advanced rules...

It could be that this was just Mike hypothesizing about the advantages of a "core" and "advanced" section of the rules. However, it could also suggest that, at least at some time in 5e development, the 5e "core" contained class races.

All in all, it's not much to go on, but it's slightly better than no evidence.

Cross-posted, sorta, from blog of holding.

 

[Rex Blunder]

Oh, another piece of evidence:

"Playtesting in the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth. My dwarf just slew a lurker with a well-timed crit to save the swallowed paladin." - Monte Cook.

If you were playing a dwarven fighter, I think you'd be slightly more likely to say "fighter" or "dwarven fighter" than "dwarf".

 

[DonTadow]

I'd hate this, the assumption that one race all you can play is one thing.

 

[Rex Blunder]

Well, the Mearls article goes on to suggest that in the "advanced" rules you'd be able to play a dwarven wizard or whatever. My suggestion is just that in the 20-page "core", "dwarf" will be a class.

 

[Wormwood]

Well, the Mearls article goes on to suggest that in the "advanced" rules you'd be able to play a dwarven wizard or whatever. My suggestion is just that in the 20-page "core", "dwarf" will be a class.

be careful what you wish for . . .

 

[Knightfall]

Well, the Mearls article goes on to suggest that in the "advanced" rules you'd be able to play a dwarven wizard or whatever. My suggestion is just that in the 20-page "core", "dwarf" will be a class.

No, I don't think the idea is that dwarf, elf, and halfling will be core classes. What I think is that there will be optional rules that let you "build" dwarf, elf, and halfling as classes using the rules for multiclassing. In fact, I bet it will let you build other races as classes using the same rules (i.e gnome, goblin, orc, etc).

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is a good example as to why I think we need to stop referring to these options as "core" and "advanced"... but rather "base" or "basic" and "advanced".

The word "Core" has so much baggage right now that if you use it, you automatically are setting things up for certain players in their minds about what it means. Especially if what you mean is completely different to what "core" meant previously.

So in the "basic game"... maybe the character creation module does not have "races" and "classes" per se... but instead have "trades" (to create a completely new word as an example). And in that regard, the Fighter, the Mage, the Thief, the Elf, and the Dwarf are all Trades that might all exist side-by-side (basically trying to recreate BECMI). But once you open up the "advanced race/class module", you now can select a separate race and separate class for your character... which doesn't add onto, but replaces the basic game's "trades" module.

That seems perfectly acceptable to me. Not all modules need to be built directly on top of other more simpler ones... some modules I think can easily replace them. And it wouldn't cause that much confusion.

 

[Reynard]

Races as classes make sense in a strong archetype focused game, like B/X. They make less sense in an open, kitchen sink game like 3.5. Then there's your middle ground, the AD&D games.

So the question is, which kind of game will the new D&D try to be out of the chute?

 

[Halivar]

Races as classes make sense in a strong archetype focused game, like B/X. They make less sense in an open, kitchen sink game like 3.5. Then there's your middle ground, the AD&D games.

So the question is, which kind of game will the new D&D try to be out of the chute?

Well, if they are to be taken at their word... all three.

I like the idea, myself, and had 6-level racial class progressions for 3.5 that mimicked the Basic D&D feel as much as I could. If they pull this off, it could be compelling for people like me that would love to have that old school feel without the old school rules.

EDIT: I would love to see an elf that comes out of the gate with automagic proficiency with swords, spells and rogue-iness. I loved loved loved the Ftr-Mu-Thf and would greatly desire to have it back.

 

[Knightfall]

This is a good example as to why I think we need to stop referring to these options as "core" and "advanced"... but rather "base" or "basic" and "advanced".

The word "Core" has so much baggage right now that if you use it, you automatically are setting things up for certain players in their minds about what it means. Especially if what you mean is completely different to what "core" meant previously.

So in the "basic game"... maybe the character creation module does not have "races" and "classes" per se... but instead have "trades" (to create a completely new word as an example). And in that regard, the Fighter, the Mage, the Thief, the Elf, and the Dwarf are all Trades that might all exist side-by-side (basically trying to recreate BECMI). But once you open up the "advanced race/class module", you now can select a separate race and separate class for your character... which doesn't add onto, but replaces the basic game's "trades" module.

That seems perfectly acceptable to me. Not all modules need to be built directly on top of other more simpler ones... some modules I think can easily replace them. And it wouldn't cause that much confusion.

I agree with you completely. Basic is a better term than core. I was simply using the same terminology that Mearls used in one of his older Legends & Lore columns that was linked to in the new thread regarding the latest L&L column.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If i reemeber right it was fighter cleric magic user theif
then it was elf (fighter mage) dwarf (fighter thief) and halflin

 

[DEFCON 1]

Well, if they are to be taken at their word... all three.

Exactly. What are the "basic" Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Thief, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling? Based upon what the Head of the Class article seemed to indicate, they are the following:

Human Fighter (damage emphasis)
Human Cleric
Human Wizard
Human Thief
Dwarf Fighter (defense emphasis)
Elf Fighter/Wizard multiclass
Halfling Thief

...as if you actually used the "Races & Classes" module to build them, but just gave all the numbers out as unchangable or unmodifiable. The basic classes have been "pre-generated" for you.

And this is how you can put these Basic ones right next to "advanced" ones (ie ones that have been created using the Races & Classes module). They are all built with the same numbers and same mechanics, and thus are all balanced against each other and all playable with each other.

And in fact... two separate players could probably play a Dwarf (basic version) and a Dwarf Fighter (advanced version) and them be perfectly balanced with each other and look virtually the same after all was said and done depending on how the advanced one was built.

 

[Knightfall]

Exactly. What are the "basic" Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Thief, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling? Based upon what the Head of the Class article seemed to indicate, they are the following:

Human Fighter (damage emphasis)
Human Cleric
Human Wizard
Human Thief
Dwarf Fighter (defense emphasis)
Elf Fighter/Wizard multiclass
Halfling Thief

...as if you actually used the "Races & Classes" module to build them, but just gave all the numbers out as unchangable or unmodifiable. The basic classes have been "pre-generated" for you.

And this is how you can put these Basic ones right next to "advanced" ones (ie ones that have been created using the Races & Classes module). They are all built with the same numbers and same mechanics, and thus are all balanced against each other and all playable with each other.

And in fact... two separate players could probably play a Dwarf (basic version) and a Dwarf Fighter (advanced version) and them be perfectly balanced with each other and look virtually the same after all was said and done depending on how the advanced one was built.

This would make the old school BECMI gamers really happy but I don't think it would be well received by everyone else. What if I want my dwarf to be a wizard but I don't want to use the advanced wizard class?

I foresee it being more like this...

Core Races
Dwarf
Elf
Halfling
Human

Core Classes
Cleric
Fighter
Rogue
Wizard

Optional Racial Classes (through multiclassing*)
Dwarf (Fighter and ?)
Elf (Fighter/Wizard)
Halfling (Rogue and ?)

* This makes me think that there will have to be more than four classes in order to build the multiclassed racial class archetypes.

Which two classes best simulate a Dwarf multiclass? Which two for the Halfling multiclass, as well? (The Elf multiclass is easy.)

 

[DEFCON 1]

This would make the old school BECMI gamers really happy but I don't think it would be well received by everyone else. What if I want my dwarf to be a wizard but I don't want to use the advanced wizard class?

Uh... because the "advanced wizard class" WAS the normal non-pregenerated character generation option?

Why is it that it's perfectly good and fine to create a dwarf wizard using the character generation rules if that is the only option to use in the book... but as soon as you put a layer of pregens underneath it as an even more basic option, that "Oh no! I can't make an Advanced Wizard class now! I want to use the CORE wizard class!"? Even though there's no reason why you can't just use the standard race/class character creation you would have used had the pregens not been there?

This is why I said we need to get rid of using the word "Core"... because just cause there's an even more basic option in the book DOESN'T REMOVE the standard option available to you.

 

[Elf Witch]

I'd hate this, the assumption that one race all you can play is one thing.

Me too and if that is how they choose to do it it could be a deal breaker for me if there are other things I don't like.

If it is that way it will be a a major house rule and I would change it.

It seems so artificial that every member of a race are nothing but a bunch of borgs.

While I can buy the whole this is a warrior race and children are raised to be warriors there will always be the minority who are different.

 

[Jeph]

This would make the old school BECMI gamers really happy but I don't think it would be well received by everyone else. What if I want my dwarf to be a wizard but I don't want to use the advanced wizard class?

Eh? To my ears, that reads like "What if I want my dwarf to be a wizard, but I don't want to make use of the options that allow my dwarf to be a wizard?"

 

[TrippyHippy]

I'd possibly classify myself as an old school BECMI gamer in a way - I enjoy the simplicity - but I think having Races as Classes will play havoc with the supposed modularity of the system. Wouldn't 4X4 simply be easier to build on, at a minimal level of complexity added?

 

[Gadget]

First, I think this is a very unlikely scenario, yet I have to admit I am actually am quite taken with this idea. I remember in the lead up to 4e some of the devs where quoted as "wanting to make race matter" as opposed to a few mechanical Bonni that don't really matter much beyond the first few levels. Basically, you ended up playing a wizard with pointy ears and penchant for song & dance; or a short, bearded, & gruff fighter with a Scottish accent an penchant for using the axe. 4e largely failed to deliver on this idea, although racial powers may have been a step in the right direction. Now, much can be done with good flavor and role-playing, but if you're going to have the mechanical burden of 'race' in the rules, it should pull its wait mechanically.

D&D has always been, at it's strongest, a game of fantasy archetypes. Things like 'dwarves' and 'elves' are fairly strong fantasy archetypes, even if we don't always agree on the precise definition or implementation of said archetypes. They need be no more the 'same' as one fighter or wizard is the the 'same' as any other. Post D20 D&D has shone many ways to differentiate various members of the same class from each other mechanically, not to mention by role playing.

As to races all being a bunch of unrealistic cookie-cutters, I really can't agree. The PC generation rules, IMHO, are not the place to do the heavy lifting for fantasy world-building in this manner. It can be assumed that there are clergy of the the Goddess of Love and Wisdom in the world without the base system showing how you take away weapon & armor abilities, add in these spells and skills, remove that, etc. The base 'cleric' is assumed to be the typical 'adventuring cleric', with a few feats domain/granted powers & spell choices to individualize. The same could be said for the racial classes, depending on how they are done. This hardly prevents the idea of dwarven wizards (or artificers, or rune-priests or such) or elven clerics or whatever. It merely makes these concepts largely NPCs, or possibly explored in add on modules in the much ballyhooed complexity dial.


Having said all of the above, I still reiterate that I think it is unlikely that we will get a return to racial classes, so I don't think there is much need to get to worked up yet if you really hate the idea.

 

[Wormwood]

Open book, play Gimli.

As a quick intro to D&D, one could do much worse.

 

[erf_beto]

Open book, play Gimli.

As a quick intro to D&D, one could do much worse.

You mean, like: "open book, play dragonborn" ?