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.