D&D (2024) YOU are in charge of the next PHB! What do you change?

[Remathilis]

Race as class died because of extra settings, subraces, DM world-building and player stories.
That simplicity in PC also made the stories and worlds simple as well.

Race-as-class is barely a blip in the D&D game.

OD&D (1974) didn't have a "dwarf" class; they only allowed dwarves to advance as fighting-men. Ditto halflings. Elves could pick either fighting-man OR magic-user and switch between the two from adventure to adventure.

The Holmes Basic Book (1977) allows dwarves and halflings to be either fighting-men or thieves*, and elves to be multi-classed fighting-men/magic-users, splitting XP between both (the first multi-class character). * Although they referred you to the not-yet-produced AD&D game for this.

AD&D (1977-79) of course kept race and class separate and added greater options (in the form of additional multi-class options or new race and class options).

The Revised Basic game (Moldvay 1981 and Metzner 1983) were the ones to go back to the drawing board and make "dwarf", "elf" and "halfling' a single class to represent race. While that was the background for B/X and later BECMI, it's worth noting that Basic itself couldn't be bothered to stick to its own rules, as the Gazetteers line for Mystara introduced variant classes like dwarf cleric, elf warrior, or elf shaman. Later still, the Princess Ark gave us races (rakasta, lupin, half-elf) that just straight-up used the "human" classes fighter/magic-user/cleric/thief effectively making them race and class separate like in AD&D.

Of Course, AD&D 2nd edition (1989) and all subsequent WotC versions (3e through 5e) kept race/class separate.

So, race-as-class existed in one strand of D&D that existed from 1981 through 1995, and not even consistently during that line. OD&D through Holmes to AD&D kept the concept of race/class separate from 1974 through today. If anything, it's the weird-aberrant strain of design and a gross oversimplification of what was the demihuman rules during the 1970's. It was never the dominant design strategy; it just feels that way since most of us started with some version of the Basic Rules in the 80's or 90's and then bought a Player's Handbook later which differed in design.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ugh, I hate, hate, hate race as class. Because I really hate the idea that all members of a particular race are exactly the same. It would work in a game so humanocentric that the PCs will encounter maybe and handful of other members of that race. But in any other type of game? Bleh.

Unless "Human" is also a class. In which case, OK.

You can fix that by having several race as class options, like dwarf warrior, dwarf berserker, dwarf machinist, et cetera. At least one OSR game I know does this. Works out pretty well, and let's you hit several archetypes at once.

 

[Remathilis]

You can fix that by having several race as class options, like dwarf warrior, dwarf berserker, dwarf machinist, et cetera. At least one OSR game I know does this. Works out pretty well, and let's you hit several archetypes at once.

What's the difference between that and having race/class restrictions like dwarves only being allowed to be fighters, barbarians and artificer? Seems like you are reinventing the wheel for every race rather than allowing them to just pick racial traits and then a normal class?

I'm speaking as someone who hunted down every class variant in the Gaz line (And made a few, like halfling burglar) just to realize AD&D's system was in fact simpler conceptually.

 

[Mind of tempest]

What's the difference between that and having race/class restrictions like dwarves only being allowed to be fighters, barbarians and artificer? Seems like you are reinventing the wheel for every race rather than allowing them to just pick racial traits and then a normal class?

I'm speaking as someone who hunted down every class variant in the Gaz line (And made a few, like halfling burglar) just to realize AD&D's system was in fact simpler conceptually.

I suppose if they are sufficiently different concepts they could be made into a subclass, why should the elves be the only one who gets one in 5e?

 

[Remathilis]

I suppose if they are sufficiently different concepts they could be made into a subclass, why should the elves be the only one who gets one in 5e?

SCAG was very experimental when it came to subclass design, being it was the first project outside the PHB to add new ones. It's not surprising they dropped the racial requirements on subclasses (and removed it off the one they reprinted). In light of races becoming less important mechanically, I don't think this is design space WotC has any intention to explore except for those youthful dalliances.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What's the difference between that and having race/class restrictions like dwarves only being allowed to be fighters, barbarians and artificer? Seems like you are reinventing the wheel for every race rather than allowing them to just pick racial traits and then a normal class?

I'm speaking as someone who hunted down every class variant in the Gaz line (And made a few, like halfling burglar) just to realize AD&D's system was in fact simpler conceptually.

Oh, AD&D's system is simpler. Multiple race as class is just an interesting way to encourage archetypes that you dont get when you mix and match everything. I was just responding to your comment. Race as class would never work as mainstream D&D in 2021. People like the idea of being able to pick anything, even if they don't in practice. Visibly restrict options and social media would revolt.

 

[Malmuria]

Race-as-class is not viable for 5e, but what I like about it is the simplicity. They are moving in the direction of making race less meaningful mechanically, but I feel they should just rip the bandaid off and go all the way. For example, instead of floating ASIs, why not just increase point buy and standard array, or put the ASIs into class? Further, the PHB plays into archetypes but only in a very superficial and ultimately non-sensical way. Do 5e players really use ribbon abilities like "stonecunning," or is it just there because it's a heritage feature that was used for a totally different style of play? Why are there racial weapon proficiencies? Why are there half elves and half orcs but no half gnomes?

To take a totally different example, I really like the way Mork Borg does classes. My players found them flavorful and interesting, and they are so simple that you can create a new one easily. Admittedly, not sure how well MB does for long term play.

 

[Parmandur]

Race-as-class is not viable for 5e, but what I like about it is the simplicity. They are moving in the direction of making race less meaningful mechanically, but I feel they should just rip the bandaid off and go all the way. For example, instead of floating ASIs, why not just increase point buy and standard array, or put the ASIs into class? Further, the PHB plays into archetypes but only in a very superficial and ultimately non-sensical way. Do 5e players really use ribbon abilities like "stonecunning," or is it just there because it's a heritage feature that was used for a totally different style of play? Why are there racial weapon proficiencies? Why are there half elves and half orcs but no half gnomes?

To take a totally different example, I really like the way Mork Borg does classes. My players found them flavorful and interesting, and they are so simple that you can create a new one easily. Admittedly, not sure how well MB does for long term play.

Floating ASICS work better for the main rule of rolling character stat. Adding to point buy or an array doesn't do anything for any table I've ever played with.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Race-as-class is not viable for 5e, but what I like about it is the simplicity. They are moving in the direction of making race less meaningful mechanically, but I feel they should just rip the bandaid off and go all the way. For example, instead of floating ASIs, why not just increase point buy and standard array, or put the ASIs into class? Further, the PHB plays into archetypes but only in a very superficial and ultimately non-sensical way. Do 5e players really use ribbon abilities like "stonecunning," or is it just there because it's a heritage feature that was used for a totally different style of play? Why are there racial weapon proficiencies? Why are there half elves and half orcs but no half gnomes?

To take a totally different example, I really like the way Mork Borg does classes. My players found them flavorful and interesting, and they are so simple that you can create a new one easily. Admittedly, not sure how well MB does for long term play.

Enough people like to roll stats (and more importantly, associate it with D&D) that you're never going to get a mainstream version of the game that eschews it. And, as was said above, ASIs feel good with rolled stats. I think we should junk them entirely so people would actually use feats, at least past 1st level.
We all have a lot of cool ideas about how we'd change the game, but the most relevant factor is always going to be maintaining sales for the game AS D&D. You're not making your own fantasy heartbreaker here, you're publishing the next version of D&D. Just having the name changes everything.

 

[Greg K]

Oh, AD&D's system is simpler. Multiple race as class is just an interesting way to encourage archetypes that you dont get when you mix and match everything. I was just responding to your comment. Race as class would never work as mainstream D&D in 2021. People like the idea of being able to pick anything, even if they don't in practice. Visibly restrict options and social media would revolt.

I don't see the need for race as class. For a given campaign, the DM can state that, among a specific race (if race is being treated as a monoculture) or culture, classes a,b,c (and/or class variants thereof (if appropriate*)) and subclasses x,y,z are found. Those become the starting choices for a starting character from that race or culture.

* someone from a foraging or pastoral cultural without locks, a thieves guild, and other cultural elements for a thief might not have access to thieves tools or thieve's cant or even the Thief subclass. However, the Scout might be appropriate as is creating a Wilderness Rogue variant of the Rogue and substituting a) some class skills, b) proficiency in thieves tools for herbalist kit, c) thieves' cant with something else (e.g. Trail Signs and Signals or an additional language), and d) make some changes to the starting equipment.