OSR Race as class vs. Race AND class

[Necrozius]

So I’m about to start an Old School Essentials campaign with modern players and youths.

I’m looking for simplicity…

What are people’s opinions, in this day and age, of

1. Race as Class
2. Race and Class mixtures
3. Using both options in the same campaign at the same time
4. Level limitations (for either)
5. Variable advancement rates (for either)
6. Ditching all this mess and handle race differently altogether (eg, look at what DungeonDark does; race is a minor add-on to a class, balanced with human as an entirely viable option)

 

[Moonglum]

I prefer race as class. I understand that removes a degree of freedom in character design, but I feel like degrees of freedom in character design are over rated. I'd rather individuate my characters based on what they do during play rather than by spending an hour obsessing about the perfect combo of stats/race/class/powerz/etc.

 

[Ladybird]

I quite liked how ACKS combined R and C them into RC's; rather than "dwarf" meaning "dwarf fighter" but not saying the fighter bit as in D&D, it had the explicit option of dwarf fighter, dwarf cleric, etc. with the way that they C'd being different depending on their R.

 

[JAMUMU]

These are my "in this day and age" answers and not how I felt about things when i was 12:

1) Race as Class is fine if it represents the typical member of the species, or the a-typical member of the species who leaves home for Adventure!
2) Race and Class mixtures were better when certain Races couldn't take certain Classes; i am no fan of the modern smorgasbord approach
3) Both options can work in the same campaign at the same time, especially if my answer to 1) is taken into account
4) Not a great fan
5) Only when some or other combination is clearly overpowered, and even then it might not be worth the hassle
6) I think I'd prefer this approach if it was the simplest

 

[Kommissarg]

In regard to simple and beginner friendly, I think Race as class is pretty good. It can help with identifying with your character in a simple way. If you should get to the point where players actively ask for the elven thief etc. you can roll with both. Also, you could explain to them the different styles and let them chose.

 

[Moonglum]

This sort of gets at what you imagine fantasy settings are doing with the concept of 'race'. In some literary cases, races are presented as stereotypes (e.g., The Hobbit/LoTR) and it makes sense to use race as class. In others, members of races are more intentionally individuated in ways that translate into game abilities, and you might prefer to model them with more of a mix-and-match toolkit.

 

[Vile Traveller]

I like race-as-class, and I think it should be expanded to humans.

 

[sharps54]

If playing a one shot or shorter adventure / campaign race as class is great. For longer term games I like specific classes built for each race. In the end though it isn't a big deal to me, I'm fine with either.

 

[JAMUMU]

I like race-as-class, and I think it should be expanded to humans.

"Humans are a superstitious, cowardly lot. They are not terribly intelligent, lack the patience to learn magic above 3rd level, and tend to make the same mistakes over and over again. As a result of this, humans take minuses to initiative checks and saves vs spell, receive no bonus languages, and if a human character sets off a trap/fails a surprise check and so on, that human character will automatically fail all subsequent attempts for the rest of the adventure.

Humans may wear any armour, though they think they look best in 'studded leather' and will rarely be encountered wearing anything else. They can use any weapon, but reserve the best weapons such as longswords and battle-axes for their nobles. Most humans will therefore be armed with spears, polearms or simple clubs. Humans gain +1 when attempting to shoot or stab a target in the back. In addition, for reasons unknown to sages, humans are interfertile with all known humanoid species, and quite a few non-humanoid species (such as hyenas and horses). For this reason human characters are often popular at parties. Humans can be of any Evil alignment."

 

[Vile Traveller]

I like race-as-class, and I think it should be expanded to humans.

To expand on this, I don't really like fully-fledged mages as PCs and no-one wants to play clerics, so I'd allow whatever species the player wants and base their class abilities on a sort of fighter/thief mix with maybe a bit of spell casting thrown in for elves and the like.

But now I think I'll just roll with JAMUMU 's humans.

 

[Spellslinging Sellsword]

If you are using OSE Advanced, then allow both in the same campaign. Some players like the simplicity of saying I'm an Elf and others like the ability to mix and match. As GM I find it doesn't affect my end at all which they choose. I'd also eschew level limits and XP penalties for demi-humans as most campaigns don't last long enough for it to matter and the ones that do most of the players don't really care that Bob gets to play a high level Dwarven fighter.

 

[Necrozius]

If you are using OSE Advanced, then allow both in the same campaign. Some players like the simplicity of saying I'm an Elf and others like the ability to mix and match. As GM I find it doesn't affect my end at all which they choose. I'd also eschew level limits and XP penalties for demi-humans as most campaigns don't last long enough for it to matter and the ones that do most of the players don't really care that Bob gets to play a high level Dwarven fighter.

This is what I'm going to do. Some Races are already multiclassed (an Elf is a Fighter/Magic-User, a GOblin is already a Thief).

My son, for example, wants to be a Dragonborn Paladin. He's okay with the slight differences in going FULL Dragonborn vs. Class version.

 

[Moonglum]

I do really like the fact that OSE has made this not worth arguing over: Each individual can use either option and the end result will be basically balanced (and each is really quite straightforward, even compared with original edition versions of these classes). I suppose if a DM has a strong opinion about the issue then your group might end up having to follow along (or find another DM!). But players are really free to do what they want without creating power imbalances that impact other players.

 

[CRKrueger]

I quite liked how ACKS combined R and C them into RC's; rather than "dwarf" meaning "dwarf fighter" but not saying the fighter bit as in D&D, it had the explicit option of dwarf fighter, dwarf cleric, etc. with the way that they C'd being different depending on their R.

Yeah, ACKS is the apex of Race as Class. Use the same rules Macris used to make his classes for his world, and make as many as you want for your world. Dwarven Reclaimers (Cleric Thieves) that bring back Dwarven items to the clan holds, Halfling Bounders, Elven Winddancers, knock yourself the fuck out. It’s awesome.

 

[Silverlion]

I like my humans better! Humans are gregarious to a fault. They will bond with anything and we do mean that literally. They will talk to their sword, their shield, even forgoing magical arms and armor because "this is their best, favorite, sword." They are also curious species that will touch a glowing rock to see if it's hot. Then upon being burned if it is not serious may attempt again to see if has cooled. Needless to say, humans as a group are not wise even though members can be very bright.

They can and will try and sleep with anything remotely compatible. This is why there are so many 'half' races because, for some damn fool reasons, humans are also fertile with the other species. Because humans are not dedicated enough, they never seem to become any one thing. Thus humans are by default, bards with a mix of low magic, combat abilities, and subterfuge. A few (very rare) individuals eschew these cliches and instead DO dedicated them to one thing. These are often where the stories of human Archmages, human Paladins, and Sword Saints come from. Humans tend towards selfish behaviors except where they bond (or see a potential bond) with someone. It has been known that some of the greatest warriors, mages, and others come from humans becoming VERY motivated in pursuit of protecting their bonded creature or object.

Be very wary.

 

[Voros]

1. I'm a fan of race-as-class for its simplicty and flavour. OSE's clever expansion of race-as-class for Drow, etc. is very well done. I'm also a fan of the many, many variant race-as-class options in the BECMI Gazetteers.

2. If you're going to have race/class seperate, I like that a halfing is good at being a thief as opposed to a warrior. Every race somehow not having their own wizards and clerics in that case though always struck me as a strange idea, it could be semi-rationalized through setting additions (there are no elf clerics because blah blah) but just seems like a lost opportunity to flesh out those societies, particularly when it comes to the role of religion in their respective societies.

3. Possible I guess but it bothers my aesthetic sense of symmetry.

4. This was always the silliest thing I thought. Why would elves be less capable at magic than humans? Seems like a solution in search of a problem, I never found demi-humans that over-powered compared to humans and so never saw the point for the level limitations and pretty much ignored them.

5. Never cared for it.

6. For D&D I prefer race-as-class but yeah if you're going to split them the more 'modern' options seem fresher in concept and execution to me.

 

[Bunch]

I quite liked how ACKS combined R and C them into RC's; rather than "dwarf" meaning "dwarf fighter" but not saying the fighter bit as in D&D, it had the explicit option of dwarf fighter, dwarf cleric, etc. with the way that they C'd being different depending on their R.

I'm with this guy the implication is you need differentiated advancement. It's a bit like don't a 3.5 build all up front at character generation and knowing will all fall into place as you level but the more you power yourself up the slower you progress.

 

[TJS]

So I’m about to start an Old School Essentials campaign with modern players and youths.

I’m looking for simplicity…

What are people’s opinions, in this day and age, of

1. Race as Class

Ehh. Not the best idea, but it works I guess. I think if you just have the four classes the game works better. Race as Class makes it easy to remove the boring fantasy races.

It's also potentially a good option for weirder non human races.

1. Race and Class mixtures

Ehhh. Tends to lead to dullness.

1. Using both options in the same campaign at the same time

Too inelegant rules wise.

1. Level limitations (for either)

Fundamentally stupid. Just a bad way to achieve a human centric game.

1. Variable advancement rates (for either)

Don't mind it. It does force everyone to track their individual XP, which is a pain, but ultimately I think a good thing in the long run even if not fun to do in the moment.

1. Ditching all this mess and handle race differently altogether (eg, look at what DungeonDark does; race is a minor add-on to a class, balanced with human as an entirely viable option)

Probably better. Although there is also the option of just ditching race altogether.

 

[Sable Wyvern]

Race as class:
I'm a fan. It means your class is not what you do, it is what you are. However, I also like a range of classes for each race. A Dwarven Delver that is a purpose built class for dwarven scouts specialising in caving is much more interesting to me than a thief with a stock dwarf template stuck on top. Note that this means I'm not overly impressed with the traditional Dwarf, which is just a fighter with the dwarf template.

Race and class mixtures:
It works but is less interesting to me.

Using both options in the same campaign at the same time:
It's not going to break anything, and if you genuinely don't care about one or the other, go for it.

Level limitations (for either):
If they're high enough, I'm ok with it. Caps of 8 - 12 in a BECMI game going to 36th level are obviously an issue, hence they had to introduce attack ranks.

Variable advancement rates (for either):
These primarily act as a hump you have to work through (you could call it an apprenticeship) in the early game, and don't have much in the way of long-term impact if you survive the first few levels. I like it; it's basically saying, "If you want these extra, cool abilities, you will have to earn them."

Ditching all this mess and handle race differently altogether (eg, look at what DungeonDark does; race is a minor add-on to a class, balanced with human as an entirely viable option)
I don't consider it a mess at all, but sure, there are a vast multitude of other viable options out there, many of which are great in the context of their own systems.

 

[David Johansen]

Race as Class
I hate it. Reduces 16 combinations to 7. Also, why can't Dwarves and Halflings be Clerics and Thieves? I can follow why someone with magic resistance can't use magic.

Race and Class mixtures
I'm reading this as Dwarf Fighter, Dwarf Cleric etc. Which I'm in favor of except that I don't really like classes.

Using both options in the same campaign at the same time
Is this like saying most Elves are Fighter-Magic-users and most Dwarves are Fighters but you can play anything. It's okay of course.

Level limitations (for either)
It's fine as long as there's some path of advancement, to use the above example if Dwarves can go to any level in Fighter but are restricted to third level in Magic-User.

Variable advancement rates (for either)
This can work as a long term balancing tool, if the Thief is weak at the start but can be third level by the time the Fighter and Magic-User are second. On the other hand I've always thought it a big bogus that Clerics were over powered and cheaper per level. I suppose it could be considered an incentive for people who didn't want to play Clerics in a game where you really need one.

Ditching all this mess and handle race differently altogether.
I like templates in open points systems. As much as I'm a Rolemaster fan, if I had my way I'd ditch professions and just have fixed skill costs and training packages.

 

[Dr. Gnome]

I used both in OSE. If someone wanted to play a Hephaestan, cool. If somebody wanted to play a Hephaestan cleric, cool. Some people like the simplicity of race being an all in one package and one like a little more customization, I can see reasons for each style. It didn't really impact my campaign in a negative way to have people playing both "just race" and "race/class" combos. In fact I don't think I really noticed from a DM standpoint.

(Oh, to edit, I don't use racial level limits or restrictions either. Dwarf wizard? Cool. If your race pays an XP penalty that's the only thing you need to worry about, you might advance a little slower.)

 

[Dr. Gnome]

1. I'm a fan of race-as-class for its simplicty and flavour. OSE's clever expansion of race-as-class for Drow, etc. is very well done. I'm also a fan of the many, many variant race-as-class options in the BECMI Gazetteers.

2. If you're going to have race/class seperate, I like that a halfing is good at being a thief as opposed to a warrior. Every race somehow not having their own wizards and clerics in that case though always struck me as a strange idea, it could be semi-rationalized through setting additions (there are no elf clerics because blah blah) but just seems like a lost opportunity to flesh out those societies, particularly when it comes to the role of religion in their respective societies.

3. Possible I guess but it bothers my aesthetic sense of symmetry.

4. This was always the silliest thing I thought. Why would elves be less capable at magic than humans? Seems like a solution in search of a problem, I never found demi-humans that over-powered compared to humans and so never saw the point for the level limitations and pretty much ignored them.

5. Never cared for it.

6. For D&D I prefer race-as-class but yeah if you're going to split them the more 'modern' options seem fresher in concept and execution to me.

I really, really liked how OSE expanded the 'race as class' options, too. It was one factor that made OSE the OSR game I sank my money into when building a library - it was different enough and well organized enough to scratch my OSR itch but everything was just done a little better imho.

 

[ffilz]

If I run an OSR (or original TSR) system, I would be happy with whatever the class system presented is.

Outside of that I run RuneQuest (classless, experience is based on use of skills and spending treasure on training) and Cold Iron. Cold Iron is at an interesting place on the class/skills spectrum. It is class based BUT the classes sort of act as super skills with everyone having a Fighter Level and everyone having one of three Magic Levels (Passive Magic - non caster, but helps saves, Magic User, and Cleric). And then there's Expertise Level that everyone also has that provides additional skill points (which can be combat or non-combat skills, usually used MOSTLY for non-combat skills but if someone really needs a fighter with multiple weapons, Expertise Levels make that workable). In both of these systems, race is just some different attribute ranges and a small set of racial abilities and otherwise non-humans advance the same as humans. Also in both systems, "monsters" have the same attributes (with different ranges) and levels/skills. Monsters may have more unique special abilities, but both systems limit those a lot more than D&D does.

 

[Silverlion]

A lot depends on your aim. I love both Race-as-class and race+class variations. I feel that for some powerful archetypes, notably some of the wild stuff found in the Creature Crucibles for BECM that it works better for those who have powerful innate gifts and no-need for other class abilities. (Example the Sidhe from Tall Tales of the Wee Folk, and even then they've two classes a mundane for them and a spellcaster type.)

I prefer it when those types are iconic--for example, the Elf of BECM is an iconic elf, a wood elf type by default (all BECM elves are that nature-focused) but also a fighter mage, and in that case it makes sense. However, I generally expect that those types should seem more alien than the 'humans with funny X' aspects of some versions of D&D and derivatives. (Of course I admit when I play an elf to ask the GM to let me re-interpret spells to be nature themed even if its magical missile by rules.)


When they're the latter--humans with funny ears/eyes whatever, then I'd prefer race+class combos. Mind you, I feel that D&D is so oversaturated with races that the race as class is actually better to create iconic characters over generic, dull, characters that some D&D players seem to make.

I see no reason for dwarves to ever be anything but dwarves because frankly most of the people who make dwarf characters ALWAYS default to fighters. Elves are much the same often being a ranger and/or a spellcaster.

As I write this and I think on it perhaps the best way to handle it might be to split based on the campaign.

If one person is playing let's say an elf or a dwarf, race as class works better. If several people are playing elves or dwarves then so long as they all take different classes entirely--that is if there is already a warrior they avoid the warrior subtypes (paladins, ranger, etc.) Thus if you had four dwarves you'd have a dwarf of each base class (fighter, wizard, rogue, priest.) This allows for them to be the same race and yet gives them some possible variations.

Mind you, these days if I were to actually care enough to run an OSR/D&D game that isn't VERY different in some way, I'd probably penalize everyone for playing a stereotype of a given race. Give me an affable, gregarious, rollicking dwarf warrior who loves everyone and isn't gruff and dour and whoo XP for you.

 

[Chris Brady]

Race as a Class has got to be the silliest thing anyone has ever done, IN MY OPINION. Do you have ANY idea just how many 'classes' that would end up doing? Seven types of Lizard man, all to represent an archetype. Then three types of Dwarves. Nine for Elves, like Spellblades or some other weird combo. So on and so forth.

Class + Race actually results in a smaller pool, but more control.

As for 'min-maxing', that's gonna happen no matter what anyone picks. If it's not Spells, it'll be Race/Class for the best special tricks that comes built into it, or Feats, or Skills, or whatever little mechanic they have in the class based game. So don't worry about it, if it happens you'll just have to deal with it.

 

[AsenRG]

So I’m about to start an Old School Essentials campaign with modern players and youths.

I’m looking for simplicity…

What are people’s opinions, in this day and age, of

1. Race as Class
2. Race and Class mixtures
3. Using both options in the same campaign at the same time
4. Level limitations (for either)
5. Variable advancement rates (for either)
6. Ditching all this mess and handle race differently altogether (eg, look at what DungeonDark does; race is a minor add-on to a class, balanced with human as an entirely viable option)

7. Play Black Sword Hack: no classes, just - possibly - races!

 

[Mankcam]

So I’m about to start an Old School Essentials campaign with modern players and youths.

I’m looking for simplicity…

What are people’s opinions, in this day and age, of

1. Race as Class
2. Race and Class mixtures
3. Using both options in the same campaign at the same time
4. Level limitations (for either)
5. Variable advancement rates (for either)
6. Ditching all this mess and handle race differently altogether (eg, look at what DungeonDark does; race is a minor add-on to a class, balanced with human as an entirely viable option)

Race and Class definately need to be separate concepts for me, so your Option 2 sounds logical.

As an aside, I'ld also suggest checking out either Shadowdark or Black Sword Hack - they are both very simple D20 OSR-adjacent rpgs that should appeal to modern players, yet still capture that great old school vibe.

 

[Moracai]

I got race as class in my heavy handedly houseruled D&D5 variant for Barrowmaze. You can multiclass out of them, but weirdly enough not into them, so your character could be an elf1 wizard 5 multiclass. It would be a smidgeon below a wizard 6 in casting (which is the max level), but will be better at finding weak spots with a bow & arrow and has instinctively known a bit of illusion magic since it was potty-trained.

 

[Chris Brady]

As an Aside, I am interested in the Black Sword Hack, I liked the first ed. of it.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

What are people’s opinions, in this day and age, of

Race as Class

Not a big fan, as least as it's normally implemented. I find it too restrictive. A fighter can be anything from a foaming beserker to a foppish swashbuckler. A dwarf is always a short dude who hits people with his axe.

Race and Class mixtures

I prefer this, as long as it's reasonably broad. (Not all options need to be available, but again I don't like being forced into too much of a box). The main exception is if you have a ridiculous number of racial classes to choose from (hi Rifts!)

Using both options in the same campaign at the same time

Good with this as it doesn't restrict as much, although I'm personally not sure why you'd need Race as class if you have Race and Class.

Level limitations (for either)

Absolute hard no on this. It either has no effect at all (low level campaigns) or is crippling (high level campaigns). If you allow non-humans, don't make me retire them half way through the campaign.

Variable advancement rates (for either)

This is a lot better and is a viable option if your races are mechanically unbalanced.

1. Ditching all this mess and handle race differently altogether (eg, look at what DungeonDark does; race is a minor add-on to a class, balanced with human as an entirely viable option)

Obviously an option. Personally, I prefer Race and Culture as the approach. The Arduin setting for Reign does this really well where you have some innate racial abilities (Sprites can fly etc.) and some cultural abilities assocated with those races. This means you can have an Orc who's culturally Elvish etc.

 

[Vile Traveller]

OD&D and Holmes were technically race plus class, if not in practice (at least until the arrival of the thief class). When I wrote BLUEHOLME I considered the main issue to be the fact that elves got to be two things at once, fighters and magicians. So I developed a formula for combination classes. Combine as many classes as you want (thief-cleric-mage-fighter if you like), and sum the XP required for each level. Hit points are the average (d4/ d6/ d8 becomes d6). All abilities and restrictions apply. Fighting-thieves can wear metal armour, but not while using thieves' skills. Fighting clerics are still limited to blunt weapons for religious reasons. Fighting mages can wear armour, but not while casting spells. That sort of thing.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

So I’m about to start an Old School Essentials campaign with modern players and youths.

I’m looking for simplicity…

What are people’s opinions, in this day and age, of

1. Race as Class
2. Race and Class mixtures
3. Using both options in the same campaign at the same time
4. Level limitations (for either)
5. Variable advancement rates (for either)
6. Ditching all this mess and handle race differently altogether (eg, look at what DungeonDark does; race is a minor add-on to a class, balanced with human as an entirely viable option)

1-I used to not be a fan of race as class (I think that was just your general default if you were accustomed to running 1e or 2e back in the day. But I had a friend who ran many long term successful campaigns using basic and my views changed a lot. Especially as I got older and wasn't as invested in the difference between advanced and basic, I started to see race as class as way easier for recruiting new players, so much easier to balance and just making things less fiddly over all. I still like both, but I think there is something to be said for race as class

2-These are fine with me

3- I would probably prefer to just use one option. Mixing the two feels a bit off

4-Like level limits. They are a good way to balance out the game

5-I still wish this was the norm. The old classes I think worked better with this approach. One of the reasons 3E had some issues, at least in my view, is the move away from variable advancement

6-I say either do it or don't. Patching it onto to another mechanic or some minor boost, just lacks the heft of having it as a full options and part of the pick your race, pick your class portion of character creation

 

[Ladybird]

Yeah, ACKS is the apex of Race as Class. Use the same rules Macris used to make his classes for his world, and make as many as you want for your world. Dwarven Reclaimers (Cleric Thieves) that bring back Dwarven items to the clan holds, Halfling Bounders, Elven Winddancers, knock yourself the fuck out. It’s awesome.

I don't still have my notes for this, but I was looking into using it for something Dark Souls-y and managed to make some quite neat Undead Folk who I think would have worked well as a set of classes. It's some good stuff.

 

[Silverlion]

Let me usurp this thread a briefly for a touch. So my race-as-class D&D variant would have the following ideas

Humans:
-Warriors
-Wizards
-Rogues
-Priests

Then they'd specialize into Warrior (Knight, Paladin, Avenger), Wizard (Specialist of Magic Type, Generalist, third?), Rogues (Theif, Bard, maybe Ranger?), Priests (Specific Gods, Druids, Paladin)

Then we'd have:

-Elf (Specialize in Bladesinger/dancer, Shapeshifter, Warden) Magic, Fighting, Nature but nothing op.
-Halfling (Shadow, Harrier, Hearthpriest), Sneak, Warrior who harasses using speed, priest of home.
-Dwarf (Forgeguard, Battlemaster, Runepriest or Runeknight?) Defensive Warrior, Offensive Warrior, Priest/Magic wielder
-Gnome (Trickster, Illusionist/Phantasmal something, and something?) focusing on nature and illusions.
-Orcs (Dragonhunter, Barbarian Warrior, Shaman) Basically my orcs eat dragon-kin (not sapient dragons) and hunt nomadically.
-Zuxchian (Sword-Saint, Shadowclaw, Taoist) the latter is my more Asian take on Rakasta.

That would be all the PC species I covered and their classes.

Suggestions? Help? Concerns?

 

[Bunch]

Race as Class /EXP tables and level limits are trying to solve a few problems. So might be worth explicitly stating them so you can see if they matter and why/how you want to change them.

Gary wanted default human so demi humans got nerfed to make them less attractive. I believe that's where level limits came from as well as limiting them to specific classes.

Exp tables are an attempt at balancing different class power curves. They seem heavily front loaded though. A mage is going to have a very very hard time making it to level 2-3 but after a few more they start outpacing a fighter handily.

 

[Spellslinging Sellsword]

Also, you can use B/X Options Class Builder to balance XP requirements and create any combination of abilities.

DriveThruRPG

www.drivethrurpg.com

 

[Dammit Victor]

1. Race as Class

I'm a fan. I design my OSR (adjacent?) fantasy stuff this way. I think it makes sense to represent non-human fantasy races in a way that shows them as fundamentally different from humans. This, to me, is the entire point of having non-human fantasy races at all... but I get a lot of pushback on this point from people who can't (or don't want to) imagine persons that are different from human persons in any meaningful way. I feel... like this supersedes any strong objections on grounds of character variety or game balance, and addressing those complaints won't really address the motivation behind them.

1. Race and Class mixtures
2. Using both options in the same campaign at the same time

Do you mean "race and class" systems like AD&D and WotC D&D, or systems that mix "race and class" and "race as class" like... Advanced OSE?

If the former, I don't have strong opinions on it. Race as Class is better for multiple reasons, but Race and Class has been the de facto standard in non-D&D fantasy games since before I ever started playing. It's alright, but a missed opportunity.

If the latter... I definitely think that an Elf should be able to take some other classes, but I also think that the idea Elf class should contain things that don't fit into the design space that "race" usually gets in D&D games and an "Elf Fighter/Mage" should not be allowed to forego those things to be more like a human Fighter, Mage, or Fighter/Mage.

An elf should be able to be an Elf/Ranger or an Elf/Mage, but not a class that doesn't include Elf, or an Elf multiclassed with any class that isn't compatible with elves in your setting.

1. Level limitations (for either)

Massively not a fan. As a worldbuilding explanation for why extremely long-lived, mostly elf, leveled NPCs aren't ruling the entire world... it's mediocre. As a balancing factor for non-human special abilities, they're fucking garbage: either your game starts well below the level cap and never reaches it, in which case it's not a balancing factor at all, or your game's going to make it into the mid-teens and the level cap is unbearable. (And you'll probably end up roundfiling it anyway.)

There's no middle ground in which it works as a balancing mechanism.

1. Variable advancement rates (for either)

I think having a different XP chart for every class was a good way to balance some classes having more powerful abilities than others. I think having different XP rewards for different behavior-- as in Second Edition-- is a great way to reflect different priorities and to make the playing experience different for different classes.

1. Ditching all this mess and handle race differently altogether (eg, look at what DungeonDark does; race is a minor add-on to a class, balanced with human as an entirely viable option)

Honestly... if you want minimal fuss and you don't want non-humans to be all that different... why do you need to have "fantasy races" at all? That is a massive bit of worldbuilding to carry into your game when you're deliberately planning on not doing anything with it. You don't need to have elves and dwarves and... fucking dragonborn in it to have a satisfying fantasy adventure setting and/or game.

Of course. Of course, I get a lot of pushback on that one, too. Your mileage may vary.

---

Race as a Class has got to be the silliest thing anyone has ever done, IN MY OPINION. Do you have ANY idea just how many 'classes' that would end up doing? Seven types of Lizard man, all to represent an archetype. Then three types of Dwarves. Nine for Elves, like Spellblades or some other weird combo. So on and so forth.

That's a fair enough point... but as counterpoint: you really think we'd have eleven kinds of catpeople, a separate elf subrace for every hectare of land, and whatever the fuck a shardmind is supposed to be, if creating a whole new race in D&D took as much effort and design consideration as creating a whole new class?

That's always been my beef with AD&D/WotC ever since I discovered that D&D was still a thing-- your job defines the majority of your character's identity for twenty (or more) levels, while everything about your entire species and/or culture fits into your first-level abilities and has to be balanced against "fucking nothing" or "+1 feat and +1 skill point/level". When you reach your level cap, name level, or whatever... do your people give you a ceremonial silver mirror, so when you wake up in the morning you're reminded what species you are?

 

[Chris Brady]

That's a fair enough point... but as counterpoint: you really think we'd have eleven kinds of catpeople, a separate elf subrace for every hectare of land, and whatever the fuck a shardmind is supposed to be, if creating a whole new race in D&D took as much effort and design consideration as creating a whole new class?

That's always been my beef with AD&D/WotC ever since I discovered that D&D was still a thing-- your job defines the majority of your character's identity for twenty (or more) levels, while everything about your entire species and/or culture fits into your first-level abilities and has to be balanced against "fucking nothing" or "+1 feat and +1 skill point/level". When you reach your level cap, name level, or whatever... do your people give you a ceremonial silver mirror, so when you wake up in the morning you're reminded what species you are?

3-4 significantly different types of elves, (Sun/Moon, Wood and Dark), 2 types of Dwarves (Hill and Mountain), 2 types of Halflings (Stout and Tallfellow) and I THINK 3 types of Gnomes is better even when combined with the basic four classes, and maybe some subclasses like Bard or Ranger when the other options end up looking like this:

Spoiler

Base Classes

Rules Cyclopedia
Cleric
Fighter
Magic-User
Thief
Druid
Mystic
Dwarf
Elf
Halfling

PC1 Tall Tales of the Wee Folk
Brownie/Redcap
Centaur
Dryad
Faun
Hsiao
Leprechaun
Pixie
Pooka
Sidhe
Sprite
Treant
Wood Imp
Wooddrake

PC2 Top Ballista
Faenare
Faenare Windsinger
Gnome, Sky
Gnome, Earth
Gremlin
Harpy
Nagpa
Pegataur
Sphinx
Tabi

PC3 The Sea Peoples
Nixie
Merrow
Aquatic Elf
Shark-kin
Triton Mage
Triton Cleric
Triton Cleric/Mage
Kna
Kopru
Sea Giant

Dragon Magazine
Elf Cleric
Elf Druid
Bard
N'djatwa
Shazak
Gurrash
Cayma
Chameleon Man
Aranea
Phanaton
E'eaar
Enduk

Dawn of the Emperors/Arena of Thyatis
Rake
Forester

GAZ2: Emirates of Ylaruam
Dervish

GAZ6: Dwarves of Rockhome
Dwarf Cleric

GAZ7: Northern Reaches
Wise Woman
Godi (Clerics of Thor, Odin, Loki and Hel)

GAZ10: Orcs of Thar
Goblin
Kobold
Hogboblin
Bugbear
Troll
Gnoll
Orc
Ogre

GAZ12: Golden Khan of Ethengar
Horse Warrior
Bratak
Hakomon
Ethengar Shaman

GAZ13: Shadow Elves
Shadow Elf Shaman

GAZ14: Atruaghin Clans
Atruaghin Shamani

Hollow World
Warrior Elf
Beastman
Brute-Man
Hutaakan
Krugel Orc
Kubbit
Malpheggi Lizard Man

HWR2: Kingdom of Nithia
Cleric of Horon
Cleric of Pflarr
Cleric of Ptahr
Cleric of Ranivorus
Cleric of Rathanos
Cleric of Thanatos
Cleric of Isiris
Fighter: Archer
Fighter: Charioteer
Fighter: Heavyman
Fighter: Spearman
Fighter: Runner
Fighter: Khopesh
Cleric: War Cleric
M-U: Mage-Scribe
M-U: Montoth
M-U: Templar
Thief: Royal Seal-Bearer
Thief: Lockmaster
Thief: Guardian

HWR3: Milenian Empire
Redhair (Cleric of Halav)
Midwife (Cleric of Vanya)
Mariner (Cleric of Protius)
Holy Defender (Cleric of Petra)
Griffon Rider

HWA3: Nightstorm
Kirtana Assassin

Wrath of the Immortals
Specialty Priest (for the following Immortals: Al-Kalim Alphaks, Alphatia, Asterius, Atruaghin, Atzanteotl, Benekander, Calitha, Diamond the Star Dragon, Diulanna, Djaea, Eiryndul, Faunus, Frey, Freyja, The Great One, Halav, Hel, Ilsundal, Ixion, Ka, Kagyar, Karaash, Khoronous, Korotiku, Koryis, Loki, Masauwu, Mealiden, Noumena, Nyx, Odin, Opal the Sun Dragon, Orcus, Ordana, Pearl the Moon Dragon, Petra, Pflarr, Protius, Rad, Rafiel, Rathanos, Razud, Talitha, Tarastia, Terra, Thanatos, Thor, Valerias, Vanya, Zirchev)

Champions of Mystara
Elf Shaman
Gruugraakh Gnoll

Rage of the Rakasta
Rakasta (only up to level 5)

Ral Partha D&D Basic Heroes Set
Rakasta (only up to level 5)



Races (can use any human class)

Dragon Magazine
Half-Elf
Lupin
Rakasta



Additional classes (can only be added to existing class or dual-classed into)

Rules Cyclopedia
Paladin
Avenger
Knight
Druid


PC1 Tall Tales of the Wee Folk
PC2 Top Ballista
Creature Wicca
Creature Shaman

PC3 The Sea People
Sea Wicca
Sea Shaman

PC4: The Night Howlers
Werebat
Werebear
Wereboar
Werefox
Wererat
Wereseal
Wereshark
Weretiger
Werewolf
Devil Swine

Dragon Magazine
Druidic Knight
Elf Paladin
Elf Druidic Knight

GAZ3: Principalities of Glantri
Elementalist
Alchemist
Illusionist
Necromancer
Cryptomancer
Witch/Warlock
Dracologist

GAZ5: Elves of Alfheim
Elf Wizard
Elf Treekeeper

GAZ8: The Five Shires
Hin Master

GAZ9: Minrothad Guilds
Sea Prince

GAZ10: Orcs of Thar
Goblinoid Wicca
Goblinoid Shaman

GAZ11: Republic of Darokin
Merchant

Hollow World
Shaman
Wokani


Human Classes

Cleric
Druid
Dervish
Godi (Clerics of Thor, Odin, Loki and Hel)
Ethengar Shaman
Atruaghin Shamani
Redhair (Cleric of Halav)
Midwife (Cleric of Vanya)
Mariner (Cleric of Protius)
Holy Defender (Cleric of Petra)
Specialty Priest (for many Immortals)
Fighter
Avenger
Druidic Knight
Griffon Rider
Horse Warrior
Paladin
Magic-User
Hakomon
Wise Woman
Thief
Bard
Bratak
Rake
Mystic
Forester

From this thread, and post from Baulderstone to which will always cause my eyes to roll up into my skull.

B/X, BECMI and OSE Love Thread

Don't think we have a thread dedicated to the Basic and Expert sets by Cook/Moldvay, Mentzer and company's Basic to Inmortal expansion of the B/X core and Old School Essentials, the current darling (rightly) of the OSR that compiles the original B/X rules in one book AND the Advanced OSE which...

www.rpgpub.com

 

[JAMUMU]

Now not to be a contrarian, but for me Baulderstone's BECMI race/class list that C Chris Brady posted explodes with flavour and possibilities. It looks like the index from some anthropological study of an actual fantasy world .

 

[Necrozius]

Lots of great feedback and arguments for and against.

I think that I'll just go with the simplest option with Old School Essentials:

1. By default, offer race as class (and explain what they are and what they can do). To keep things simple for those who don't care.

2. If someone asks for something more specific (eg Elf Ranger), I'll use the Race AND Class combination rules in the OSE Advanced Player's Tome. To meet player wants, needs and modern expectations.

3. No level caps for races or class limitations. Not necessary, really, especially at low levels.

4. Will keep class level limits though (eg one class goes up to 14 while another only goes to 10, but takes about the same amount of XP to reach the limits). Gavin Norman must have kept those there without alternatives for a reason.

4. Will use the OSE optional rules to boost the Human Race (stat boosts, re-roll HP each level, bonus to morale checks for followers, breaking initiative ties). If anything goes, then Humans need some kind of empowerment, honestly.