# Elf as a class



## GMforPowergamers (May 23, 2022)

In another thread or 50,000,000 threads we have been talking about older styles of gaming in 5e and the idea of bringing them in. Now I (and a few others) spend a lot of time focused on 4e, and I personally push some (select some) from 2e... but basic had an idea I think could be fleshed out (and believe it or not my least fav edition) 3e even worked on it a bit.

Race as class. 

SO I am sure someone here is better equipped to discuses what the elf class and dwarf class were in basic, but in 3.5 we had a type of prestige class that was a paragon of elfeness... is that a work? 

as the title says though, I want to address if it is possible in 5e to have a class 'elf' for this I pulled this from the interwebs (reddit)



> The Basic D&D Elf class was essentially nearly identical to a 1st Edition AD&D fighter/magic user mutliclass.
> They needed roughly double the xp to level compared to other classes - I remember 4000xp for level 2 in Basic, and in AD&D that was 2000xp for Fighter, 2500 for Mage, with xp split between classes.
> In AD&D they started with (d10+d4)/2 hitpoints, in Basic D&D they got 1d6 per level.
> They were unlimited in terms of weapons and armour in both versions. In AD&D they got +1 to hit with swords and bows, I can't remember if this carried over to Basic D&D.




So my first thought was to make an eldritch knight or a bladesinger... then I thought why be basic just cause I am making a basic class...

so this is not play tested, this is not something I would plan on letting into my next campaign... but as a conversation starter and proof of concept:




Spoiler: elf



HD d10
prof: all simple weapons long sword, and long bow, all light and medium armor
Saves: Dex and Cha
skills: arcana and one of Acrobatics, History, Insight, Perform, stealth
tools: 1 artesian tool and 1 instrument

half caster (like artificer so at 1st level still has 1 1st level spell and 2 cantrips)

2 extra attacks 1 at 6th and 1 at 15th level... with a mix of eldritch knight/blade singer you can give up 1 attack to use a cantrip... or at 15th+ can give up 2 attacks to cast a spell of 1st or 2nd level slot...

they use Int as there casting stat, and they have the spell book feature of the wizard... BUT only learning 1 spell by default per level

there are 2 subclasses (1 for being more warrior and 1 for being more caster) I assume at some point you might want to add extra spells... like maybe the warrior subclass would get some smites and/or hunters quarry but the wizard subclass would get more druid spells 

at 2nd level they get cunning action (OMG that isn't fighter OR wizard) 

at 5th level they get uncanny dodge (OMG that is from rogue too)

at 7th level they get a variant of Feral Instinct (OMG now barbarian too) just the advantage to initiative since they don't have rage.

at 11th level they get telepathy as a language...

beyond that I don't know. part of me wants to expand the wizard's spell mastery so the elf will have more spells preped... but that feels like it should maybe be one of those subclasses


----------



## delericho (May 23, 2022)

I'm afraid I'm not a fan of "race as class" in pretty much any form. Even with races that are just too powerful to play at level 1, I'd be inclined to model them as a weak variant that is then optionally enhanced either with a subclass or, probably better, a feat chain.

That said, in the case of the "Elf class" specifically, that _is_ something I'd like to see added - the lack of a Mageblade/Eldritch Knight/whatever _base_ class is something of an oversight, IMO. And what you have presented here looks like a good base for that - the major thing that I think is missing is a dedicated spell-list, which I think such a class really does need.


----------



## Greggy C (May 23, 2022)

An elf who is automatically both a warrior and a wizard, certainly didn't match with Tolkeins world and so was always bizarre concept to me.

Makes more sense for monsters that are only "one thing".


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 23, 2022)

delericho said:


> the major thing that I think is missing is a dedicated spell-list, which I think such a class really does need.



yup... in my perfect world it would have a list that was VERY similar to wizard but also have a few spells from other classes and like I said it's subclasses would open up more...

having said that I would most likely just be 'wizard'


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 23, 2022)

Greggy C said:


> An elf who is automatically both a warrior and a wizard, certainly didn't match with Tolkeins world and so was always bizarre concept to me.



not really, but no D&D elf does... 


Greggy C said:


> Makes more sense for monsters that are only "one thing".



I think it doesn't fully work at all, but again this is for a thought experiment


----------



## Bill Zebub (May 23, 2022)

The only thing I like at all about race as class is based on nostalgia.  I think of my very first character, Eärrámë the Elf, and I get warm and fuzzy all over.

Other than that it sucks.


----------



## Greggy C (May 23, 2022)

An elf who is automatically both a warrior and a wizard


GMforPowergamers said:


> not really, but no D&D elf does...
> 
> I think it doesn't fully work at all, but again this is for a thought experiment




?
The Basic D&D Red Box elf could use all armor and weapons, and cast spells.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 23, 2022)

Greggy C said:


> The Basic D&D Red Box elf could use all armor and weapons, and cast spells.



yes that is what I based this on NOT lord of the rings


----------



## the Jester (May 23, 2022)

So you're taking the fighter chassis, slapping on eldritch knight subclass goodies, and adding in a few of the abilities available to other classes, including the rogues' signature ability, on top of it? I don't think this is balanced very well and I'm not sure how splashing in things like telepathy helps evoke the classic elf feel.  

Race as class takes away from meaningful choices, so I'm not a big fan. The interaction of race and class is one of the big choice points in character creation.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 23, 2022)

the Jester said:


> So you're taking the fighter chassis, slapping on eldritch knight subclass goodies, and adding in a few of the abilities available to other classes, including the rogues' signature ability, on top of it? I don't think this is balanced very well and I'm not sure how splashing in things like telepathy helps evoke the classic elf feel.



well I was going for a a moble spell casting warrior, and yes I took both barbarian and rogue abilities, but I didn't give them everything a fighter gets (no second wind no action surge no indomitable) it is MORE a factor that the fighter doesn't have much going for it that ANY new class can be said to have 'it's chassis'. 

I didn't even give it the full 4 attacks, and by the time you get your 3rd fighters are ready for there 4th. 

as for giving 11+ telepathy I actually meant it as a joke cause LotR movies gave them all mind speak.


the Jester said:


> Race as class takes away from meaningful choices,



how?


the Jester said:


> The interaction of race and class is one of the big choice points in character creation.



yes, but as I have been told over and over again, people like simple.


----------



## Remathilis (May 23, 2022)

I can't see "elf" as a class either as a base class like basic or a paragon/prestige class like 3e. Elf is barely able to be a race with a defined cultural and appearance traits, there is 0% chance it could define a class.

That said, I'd like a gish class like duskblade that is supposed to represent the old elf f/m mix. Something with more magic than an ek, less than a bladesinger. 

But I don't see enough value in a dwarf class, a halfling class, a dragonborn class, an aasimar class, etc. I also think the audience for this would be vanishingly small. I love Basic, but even I would prefer race and class to be separate and elves be able to be clerics, rogues, single-classed wizards, etc.


----------



## Jer (May 23, 2022)

Speaking with experience and the benefit of hindsight - race as class worked back in the day because character customization was essentially moot.  Being able to play an Elf was basically a reward in the character creation minigame of stat rolling - were you lucky enough to be able to play the character who could use a sword and cast spells?  Congratulations! You rolled really well and won't be stuck playing the cleric this time. As the character creation minigame fell out of favor and character modeling became the approach the majority wanted, the race-as-class choice became less interesting.  Even by the end of BECMI there was a Dwarf Cleric class and an Elf Warrior class (among others) that had worked their way into the game via Gazetteers and the Hollow World boxed set to acknowledge that the race-as-class design of BECMI was just lacking something.  (Separating Races and Classes in BECMI was always one of the big house rules I'd see people make back in the day too).

I think for 5e  race-as-class foils one of 5e's core design elements, which is that players should be making a small number of big choices at character creation.  Race, Class, Background - rolling Race and Class into one thing removes a big choice with no return.

Having said that - I think having a class that Elves can take that represents that traditional Elven Fighter/Wizard is an interesting idea.  And I do agree that the Eldritch Knight isn't quite it, so I'm interested to see where you go with this.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 23, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> That said, I'd like a gish class like duskblade that is supposed to represent the old elf f/m mix. Something with more magic than an ek, less than a bladesinger.



I mean me too, I could even argue that my frame work could work for that too... but I am wondering if the small amount of people that WOULD like it could make it work


Remathilis said:


> But I don't see enough value in a dwarf class, a halfling class, a dragonborn class, an aasimar class, etc. I also think the audience for this would be vanishingly small. I love Basic, but even I would prefer race and class to be separate and elves be able to be clerics, rogues, single-classed wizards, etc.



yeah I know elf was F/MU I assume the dwarf was fighter/cleric and the hafling was theif... maybe fighter/thief


----------



## the Jester (May 23, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> how?



The interaction of race and class is an important decision point, even if you use the floating ASIs that are now all the rage, but even moreso if you stick to racial bonuses to specific stats.


GMforPowergamers said:


> yes, but as I have been told over and over again, people like simple.



Hey, if you like it, go for it. I just don't think your first take is very good. I'd lean harder into the fighter/mage thing and drop the stuff from other classes.


----------



## delericho (May 23, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> yeah I know elf was F/MU I assume the dwarf was fighter/cleric and the hafling was theif... maybe fighter/thief



In BECMI both the Dwarf and the Halfling were basically just Fighters.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 23, 2022)

the Jester said:


> The interaction of race and class is an important decision point, even if you use the floating ASIs that are now all the rage, but even moreso if you stick to racial bonuses to specific stats.



I mean that defeats the purpose of the thought experiment 


the Jester said:


> Hey, if you like it, go for it. I just don't think your first take is very good. I'd lean harder into the fighter/mage thing and drop the stuff from other classes.



did you read the part were the example was thrown togather on a whim and NOT something I wanted or would use?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 23, 2022)

delericho said:


> In BECMI both the Dwarf and the Halfling were basically just Fighters.



really? they didn't get anything?


----------



## Jer (May 23, 2022)

delericho said:


> In BECMI both the Dwarf and the Halfling were basically just Fighters.



Fighters with extra traits, which were "paid for" by different XP tables and with "level caps" (that were done away with practically speaking by the Companion set rules).  The Dwarf had to pay a premium to get their extra resistance to spells better saving throws overall and their sloping corridor detection.  The Halfling IIRC didn't pay anything for their extra boosts - I guess the thought was that their extra abilities (better AC against man-sized or larger creatures and a bonus to attacks with missile weapons and better saving throws overall) didn't warrant an XP increase?  Or were traded off against their small size which penalized them when they used weapons that were too large?  Or maybe originally the level 8 level cap was seen as enough of a penalty and by the time they removed level caps they didn't really care anymore about that kind of "balance"?  Could go any way...

ETA: Just looked it up - Dwarves and halflings both got a better saving throw table than the regular Fighter did.  Still not sure why Halflings didn't have to pay any kind of premium for it beyond rolling well on stats though.


----------



## Remathilis (May 23, 2022)

delericho said:


> In BECMI both the Dwarf and the Halfling were basically just Fighters.



Basically. Dwarves were fighters with infravision, stonecunning and better saving throws, halflings were fighters with a bonus on hiding, ranged weapons, and surprise (more akin to spell-less rangers). Later books in Mystara added subclasses to racial classes that mimicked dwarf clerics, elf magic users, etc. By the time of the Princess Ark and rakasta (cat people), lupins (dog people) and tortles, they were just taking regular classes like an AD&D character anyway.

It's an idea that's time has passed, like Thac0.


----------



## Remathilis (May 23, 2022)

Jer said:


> Fighters with extra traits, which were "paid for" by different XP tables and with "level caps" (that were done away with practically speaking by the Companion set rules). The Dwarf had to pay a premium to get their extra resistance to spells and their sloping corridor detection. The Halfling IIRC didn't pay anything for their extra boosts - I guess the thought was that their extra abilities (better AC against man-sized or larger creatures and a bonus to attacks with missile weapons IIRC) didn't warrant an XP increase? Or were traded off against their small size which penalized them when they used weapons that were too large? Or maybe originally the level 8 level cap was seen as enough of a penalty and by the time they removed level caps they didn't really care anymore about that kind of "balance"? Could go any way...



They paid for it with a d6 HD, smaller than the fighter and dwarf d8 and on par with the cleric.


----------



## delericho (May 23, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> really? they didn't get anything?



As @Jer notes, they got things like the ability to detect sloping floors and infravision.

But, effectively, a BECMI Dwarf is just a 5e Dwarf Fighter, and likewise for the Halfling.


----------



## Jer (May 23, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> They paid for it with a d6 HD, smaller than the fighter and dwarf d8 and on par with the cleric.



You're right! The smaller hit die would make it a trade off.  I forgot that bit.


----------



## Krachek (May 23, 2022)

For such a concept I would go for an association for race and sub class.
one race <—> one subclass or some few choice.
for example 
elf  eldrith knight fighter,  enchantment school wizard.

you may add sub race into the process if you need.

that may not fit for all players, but NPC must obey the rules!


----------



## Ancalagon (May 23, 2022)

So after a few years of trying (and burning out on) pbp, in early 2021 finally got to play 5e "for real" as a player (not as a DM) and I decided that I wanted to start with something very iconic, almost cliche.  The party didn't have a scout, and I told myself "I'm going to make my PC legolas!"

So of course I'm going to make him a ranger right?  But then I thought about it... and I went with a Kensei Monk.  A _lot_ of monk powers can be very easily be be reskinned as "elf powers".   I will leave the details to imagine for the reader, but once you've done that, you'll see that it really, really "fits"


----------



## JThursby (May 23, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Race as class.



I don't think this will ever return nor should it.  A major complaint I have and see repeated with 5e is character homogeneity. Making races as classes basically takes one of the few ways you have of customizing a character and removing it entirely by folding it into the primary character choice, which is your class.  I'd rather see more choices within a race that are iconic to that race, ideally beyond just character creation as well.  We already have that with some of the racial feats but they compete for the extremely valuable feat/ASI slots, I'd rather have them be their own thing you can pick from at certain points in your career.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 23, 2022)

Ancalagon said:


> So after a few years of trying (and burning out on) pbp, in early 2021 finally got to play 5e "for real" as a player (not as a DM) and I decided that I wanted to start with something very iconic, almost cliche.  The party didn't have a scout, and I told myself "I'm going to make my PC legolas!"
> 
> So of course I'm going to make him a ranger right?  But then I thought about it... and I went with a Kensei Monk.  A _lot_ of monk powers can be very easily be be reskinned as "elf powers".   I will leave the details to imagine for the reader, but once you've done that, you'll see that it really, really "fits"



monks give great mobility and versatility and Legolas has both. 

this goes back to my theory that every pop culture character turned into a D&D concept could be run at least 2 most 3-5 different builds.


----------



## Ancalagon (May 23, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> monks give great mobility and versatility and Legolas has both.
> 
> this goes back to my theory that every pop culture character turned into a D&D concept could be run at least 2 most 3-5 different builds.




Absolutely - say you want a "swashbuckler".  Sure you _could_ play a rogue swashbuckler.... but a kensei monk, a dex-build battlemaster would also work well too.


----------



## Sabathius42 (May 23, 2022)

From my quick breeze through of the build....I'm not sure why you have so much rogue built into a fighter/wizard.


----------



## aco175 (May 24, 2022)

I'm not sure making a race a class would work.  Tasha's has the new rules for making a race and making a variant race/elf class might not work.  I have seen some discussion on if the new 'race' you make to get the variant build is a member of a race or a separate thing.


----------



## Bacon Bits (May 24, 2022)

This was already done. Into the Unknown took 5e and B/Xed it. It's halfway between 5e and Old School Essentials.









						Into the Unknown - Book 1: Characters - O5R Games | Into the Unknown | DriveThruRPG.com
					

Into the Unknown - Book 1: Characters - Into the Unknown is an Old School game that seeks to blend the Basic & Expert rules and style of play of the '80s




					www.drivethrurpg.com


----------



## cbwjm (May 24, 2022)

The alfheim becmi book brought in the elf wizard which was a specialisation for the elf where they could continue to boost their magical abilities at the expense of their warrior abilities. You could add this as a specialisation option at level 11 so that they choose to gain more fighter options or increased spellcasting capacity (perhaps increasing from half-caster to full-caster) but losing out on things like extra Attack at higher level.


----------



## Grantypants (May 24, 2022)

Mechanically, I like it. It's no different at the table than a custom class with a strict racial prerequisite. 
Story-wise, I don't like it. It implies a setting where elves are all the same, in contrast with humans that have their choice of class. If you like it, have fun, but it's not something I'd want to use at my table. (That's assuming you continue to use the Basic rules on 5e. If not, trying to write "human as class" raises some interesting questions.) 



Greggy C said:


> Makes more sense for monsters that are only "one thing".



Where I would use race as class is on playable monsters. You could design a Beholder PC race as class, for example, and balance it to be playable alongside PCs of equal level.


----------



## kapars (May 24, 2022)

I’ve never played one so I cannot comment mechanically but the race as class appeals to me from a narrative perspective if you want to play an accidental adventurer, much like the Hobbits of LotR.


----------



## Li Shenron (May 24, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> In another thread or 50,000,000 threads we have been talking about older styles of gaming in 5e and the idea of bringing them in. Now I (and a few others) spend a lot of time focused on 4e, and I personally push some (select some) from 2e... but basic had an idea I think could be fleshed out (and believe it or not my least fav edition) 3e even worked on it a bit.
> 
> Race as class.
> 
> ...



Is this for theorycrafting or practical use? Because if it is for the latter, then at least don't worry too much about filling 20 levels.

To recreate an older-edition Elf class (but *without *the original idea of being actually a gestalt and having to pay by slow XP progression) you definitely want to end up with a fighter-wizard hybrid, but instead of using other class as basis my first choice would be to base it on the *Bard* class, which is already an arcane-style full-caster class with some martial capabilities. You can remove Bardic Inspiration and other too-bardic-sounding features, and replace them with some from the Fighter, Ranger or Rogue class, or from some interesting subclasses e.g. the Swashbuckler. One 5e thing that definitely plays in favour of your character concept, is the rule that having armor proficiency allows to cast spells in armor (which IIRC is not actually allowed in BECMI so will make this even better than the original Elf class).


----------



## Minigiant (May 24, 2022)

RaceClassesHouseruleDragonbornFighter/Sorcerer (Dragon) GestaltGet Extra Attack at Fight3/Sorc2Dwarf (Hill)FighterAdd Wis mod to crossbow and thrown axes and hammer attacksDwarf (Mountain)Fighterd12 HD, Only has axes, hammers and crossbows as weapon proficiencyElf (High)Fighter/Wizard GesaltGet Extra Attack at Fight3/Wiz2Elf (Wood)Fighter/Cleric (Nature) GesaltGet Extra Attack at Fight3/Cler2Gnome (Forest)Fighter/Wizard GesaltFighter levels count to spell slots. Can only learn Illusion spellsGnome (Rock)Fighter/Artificer Gesalt2 bonus cantripsHalfling (Lightfoot)RogueAdd Cha mod to sneak attacksHalfling (Stout)Fighter/Rogue GesaltGet Extra Attack at Fight3/Rog2, can sneak attack with longswwords and battleaxesHalf OrcFighter/Barbarian GesaltGet Extra Attack at Fight3/Barb2TielflingRogue/Warlock Gesaltd10 HD for both classes

Made a quick chart if I were to do it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 25, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> RaceClassesHouseruleDragonbornFighter/Sorcerer (Dragon) GestaltGet Extra Attack at Fight3/Sorc2Dwarf (Hill)FighterAdd Wis mod to crossbow and thrown axes and hammer attacksDwarf (Mountain)Fighterd12 HD, Only has axes, hammers and crossbows as weapon proficiencyElf (High)Fighter/Wizard GesaltGet Extra Attack at Fight3/Wiz2Elf (Wood)Fighter/Cleric (Nature) GesaltGet Extra Attack at Fight3/Cler2Gnome (Forest)Fighter/Wizard GesaltFighter levels count to spell slots. Can only learn Illusion spellsGnome (Rock)Fighter/Artificer Gesalt2 bonus cantripsHalfling (Lightfoot)RogueAdd Cha mod to sneak attacksHalfling (Stout)Fighter/Rogue GesaltGet Extra Attack at Fight3/Rog2, can sneak attack with longswwords and battleaxesHalf OrcFighter/Barbarian GesaltGet Extra Attack at Fight3/Barb2TielflingRogue/Warlock Gesaltd10 HD for both classes
> 
> Made a quick chart if I were to do it.



I like it


----------



## Tonguez (May 25, 2022)

Basics use of race = class was specifically to make Mage-Fighters and Dwarfs Fighter-Defenders, and Halflings = Thieves. There was no reason other than the game being human-centric. ADnD broke out race from class and allowed for more customisation - that is a good thing.

if anything Race these days should just be a Background that gives a basic ASL and a couple of racial feats.


----------



## Eltab (May 25, 2022)

If I wanted to introduce grade-school-aged new players to D&D, pregen characters with race=class and names familiar from pop culture would help them get the 'feel' of what their character can do, quickly.

The idea is ... well, Basic (pardon the pun) ... so it best fits when you want to remove some of the game's variables to concentrate on other parts - like teaching newcomers how the combat round works.


----------



## LordEntrails (May 25, 2022)

Race as class implies that every member of that race is that class. That means every elf is exactly the same. Their are no clerics, warlocks, sorcerers, barbarians, etc. That's just really boring.

And are you going to do the same things for every other race? So then why bother wit a system that has both race and class? I guess if you wanted a really predefined system with very few character build options.

Not for me.


----------



## Minigiant (May 25, 2022)

LordEntrails said:


> Race as class implies that every member of that race is that class. That means every elf is exactly the same. Their are no clerics, warlocks, sorcerers, barbarians, etc. That's just really boring.
> 
> And are you going to do the same things for every other race? So then why bother wit a system that has both race and class? I guess if you wanted a really predefined system with very few character build options.
> 
> Not for me.



Race as class doesn't assume every member of a race is the same. It assumes ever adventurer of a race comes from specific backgrounds and are the same. 

The rule implies a specific type of setting. The truth is in very traditional and feudal setting, the training required to be a "D&D style adventurer of a PC class" would only come from specific backgrounds. And in classic settings, only certain types of those people would leave "normal" society and become adventurers.

An issue is most DMs suck at making said settings work or highlighting them so that people by into it. Very often PCs are setting agnostic and lack setting specific hooks before submission to the DM.


----------



## Remathilis (May 25, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> The rule implies a specific type of setting. The truth is in very traditional and feudal setting, the training required to be a "D&D style adventurer of a PC class" would only come from specific backgrounds. And in classic settings, only certain types of those people would leave "normal" society and become adventurers.




I always found a certain charm in Basics heavy emphasis on archetypes. It was a game where you WERE an elf, a wizard, a ranger, a thief, etc. It's not the one where you refluff your thief as an honest merchant, you are a sneak thief. It works because the archetypes are strong but have some flexibility. But you gotta be into that strong archetyping and that can get limiting or lead to "a new class for every idea"


----------



## TwoSix (May 25, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> I always found a certain charm in Basics heavy emphasis on archetypes. It was a game where you WERE an elf, a wizard, a ranger, a thief, etc. It's not the one where you refluff your thief as an honest merchant, you are a sneak thief. It works because the archetypes are strong but have some flexibility. But you gotta be into that strong archetyping and that can get limiting or lead to "a new class for every idea"



To be fair, that's something to be said for a game with lots of classes with strong archetypes but limited flexibility.  It gives the prospective players a lot more options, but doesn't force them make go through a menu of modular choices after an option is selected.

I've noticed in general that newer players tend to respond better to options with strong typing and imagery (like initial race and class picks), and tend to get bogged down when presented with too many options that aren't particularly vivid.  For example, like when picking a subclass when the options are in multiple books, or when trying to decide between an ASI and a feat at 4th level.

I keep imagining a book like OSE Advanced Fantasy, where each class/race is a 2-3 page spread with a cool picture, but with modern color art instead of B&W illustrations.


----------



## Micah Sweet (May 25, 2022)

One of the advantages of race as class is it gives you the opportunity to show how different races realize similar concepts.  To that end, you could have multiple dwarf/elf/whatever classes each showing different professions valued by their cultures.  Adventurer Conqueror King has been doing this for years to good effect IMO.


----------



## TwoSix (May 25, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> One of the advantages of race as class is it gives you the opportunity to show how different races realize similar concepts.  To that end, you could have multiple dwarf/elf/whatever classes each showing different professions valued by their cultures.  Adventurer Conqueror King has been doing this for years to good effect IMO.



Yea, that's how my ideal OSR type game would do it.  The more common races would have 5-6 class options each, and the less common, more esoteric races might only have 1 or 2.  How ACKS does it is pretty close to my personal ideal.


----------



## LordEntrails (May 25, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> An issue is most DMs suck at making said settings work



Or most DMs think that such settings suck.


Minigiant said:


> or highlighting them so that people by into it.



Or most players think such settings suck or are too limited to keep playing the same thing for years on end.


Minigiant said:


> Very often PCs are setting agnostic and lack setting specific hooks before submission to the DM.



Absolutely true.

In short, their is no one true way. And saying people suck because they don't agree with your one-true way is... sad.


----------



## Morrus (May 25, 2022)

It occurs to me that if you say an elf is a class you could equally say a fighter is a race--in the sense that by doing so you have a new type of game content which can be filled by a race or a class. So really its neither; it needs a new name. 'Role', perhaps. Elf is a role, fighter is a role, dwarf is a role, wizard is a role.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 25, 2022)

Jer said:


> Fighters with extra traits, which were "paid for" by different XP tables and with "level caps" (that were done away with practically speaking by the Companion set rules).  The Dwarf had to pay a premium to get their extra resistance to spells better saving throws overall and their sloping corridor detection.  The Halfling IIRC didn't pay anything for their extra boosts - I guess the thought was that their extra abilities (better AC against man-sized or larger creatures and a bonus to attacks with missile weapons and better saving throws overall) didn't warrant an XP increase?  Or were traded off against their small size which penalized them when they used weapons that were too large?  Or maybe originally the level 8 level cap was seen as enough of a penalty and by the time they removed level caps they didn't really care anymore about that kind of "balance"?  Could go any way...
> 
> ETA: Just looked it up - Dwarves and halflings both got a better saving throw table than the regular Fighter did.  Still not sure why Halflings didn't have to pay any kind of premium for it beyond rolling well on stats though.



The stat requirements may have been seen as enough of a cost. If OSE is accurate to B/X (which I’ve been lead to believe it is), halflings need 9 Dex and 9 Con, whereas dwarves only need 9 Con and Fighters don’t have any stat requirements. Halflings also have split prime requisites (Str and Dex), so that may have been seen as a functional XP penalty.


----------



## CleverNickName (May 25, 2022)

This isn't something I've needed in my games, but I can see it.

I think it would be a little easier to convert the 3.5E "paragon" elf to 5th Edition, than it would be to convert the Basic D&D elf.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 25, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> To be fair, that's something to be said for a game with lots of classes with strong archetypes but limited flexibility.  It gives the prospective players a lot more options, but doesn't force them make go through a menu of modular choices after an option is selected.
> 
> I've noticed in general that newer players tend to respond better to options with strong typing and imagery (like initial race and class picks), and tend to get bogged down when presented with too many options that aren't particularly vivid.  For example, like when picking a subclass when the options are in multiple books, or when trying to decide between an ASI and a feat at 4th level.
> 
> I keep imagining a book like OSE Advanced Fantasy, where each class/race is a 2-3 page spread with a cool picture, but with modern color art instead of B&W illustrations.



It certainly makes Fighter make a lot more sense as a class, when it’s _the_ archetype of “person who fights,” as opposed to just being the least distinctive martial class among many.


----------



## Remathilis (May 25, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> To be fair, that's something to be said for a game with lots of classes with strong archetypes but limited flexibility. It gives the prospective players a lot more options, but doesn't force them make go through a menu of modular choices after an option is selected.




I gotta agree. I used to hate the idea of builds in 3e because it took archetypes like barbarian and wizard and broke them down into features like fast movement or find familiar. I actually liked the class bloat of 3e and 4e, though 4e's method made the differences within a role hard to discern without scrutiny. 

One of my favorite clones was Basic Fantasy, which combined the strong archetypes of Basic with a simple race choice system to allow variety. Additionally, it was flexible enough to allow many AD&D classes and races to be built for it, which gave me plenty of options while not being as overwhelming as AD&D.


----------



## Minigiant (May 25, 2022)

LordEntrails said:


> Or most DMs think that such settings suck.



I mean the DMs who like it typically can't display the benefits of said settings to those not enamored with them. That's why race as class isn't popular.


----------



## Minigiant (May 25, 2022)

Morrus said:


> It occurs to me that if you say an elf is a class you could equally say a fighter is a race--in the sense that by doing so you have a new type of game content which can be filled by a race or a class. So really its neither; it needs a new name. 'Role', perhaps. Elf is a role, fighter is a role, dwarf is a role, wizard is a role.



There was a time back in the 3E days where I imagined each class and race as their own role. So there was no Dwarf Fighter. There was only the Fighter as a human only concept. A Dwarf would have to be a Guard or Highborn to have some of the fightery stuff but with its own pros/cons. Much how a Arcane Archer was elf only back then.

It would be an interesting look to see how someone would categorize each of the 5e "subclasses as race" into their own "roles" and see how one would divide them up.


----------



## Bacon Bits (May 25, 2022)

Morrus said:


> It occurs to me that if you say an elf is a class you could equally say a fighter is a race--in the sense that by doing so you have a new type of game content which can be filled by a race or a class. So really its neither; it needs a new name. 'Role', perhaps. Elf is a role, fighter is a role, dwarf is a role, wizard is a role.




Pathfinder 2e was right. Everything is a feat.

No Dungeon World was right. Everything is a move.

No Savage Worlds was right. Everything is a trait or an edge.

Wait, maybe GURPS was right, and everything needs a point level that people will powergame to high heaven until the GM bans it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 25, 2022)

Bacon Bits said:


> Pathfinder 2e was right. Everything is a feat.
> 
> No Dungeon World was right. Everything is a move.
> 
> ...



WoD was right everyone is a monster fighting there own inner struggle...


----------



## pnewman (Jul 3, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> WoD was right everyone is a monster fighting there own inner struggle...



Mechwarrior was right, everyone is the pilot of a giant robot.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Jul 3, 2022)

it sounds like that what you want to make is the mystical arcane gish which no one has ever truly gotten to work


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Jul 3, 2022)

I would put the elves traits (super accuracy, great sight, master archer, long life etc) as part of the main class and let the archetypes carry the burden of deciding if the elves is a gish or a ranger or whatever. Use the race traits and special feats from XGtE to create the features of the main class.

Class: Elven Hero
HD: 1d8
Prof: Light armor, Simple weapons + Bows and Longsword. 
Skills: Perception + 2 others
etc

Archetypes:
Bladesinger (insert Bladesinger + fullcaster into the Elf class)
Green Seer (Mix of druid and bard)
Master Archer
Tomb Warden (Fighter + turn undead)
etc


----------



## James Gasik (Jul 3, 2022)

Jer said:


> Speaking with experience and the benefit of hindsight - race as class worked back in the day because character customization was essentially moot.  Being able to play an Elf was basically a reward in the character creation minigame of stat rolling - were you lucky enough to be able to play the character who could use a sword and cast spells?  Congratulations! You rolled really well and won't be stuck playing the cleric this time. As the character creation minigame fell out of favor and character modeling became the approach the majority wanted, the race-as-class choice became less interesting.  Even by the end of BECMI there was a Dwarf Cleric class and an Elf Warrior class (among others) that had worked their way into the game via Gazetteers and the Hollow World boxed set to acknowledge that the race-as-class design of BECMI was just lacking something.  (Separating Races and Classes in BECMI was always one of the big house rules I'd see people make back in the day too).
> 
> I think for 5e  race-as-class foils one of 5e's core design elements, which is that players should be making a small number of big choices at character creation.  Race, Class, Background - rolling Race and Class into one thing removes a big choice with no return.
> 
> Having said that - I think having a class that Elves can take that represents that traditional Elven Fighter/Wizard is an interesting idea.  And I do agree that the Eldritch Knight isn't quite it, so I'm interested to see where you go with this.



I think this ship has sailed, a lot of people were unhappy that Bladesingers were presented as Elf-only when the SCAG came out.  I don't expect to see a ton of race-specific options in the future.


----------



## HammerMan (Jul 3, 2022)

pnewman said:


> Mechwarrior was right, everyone is the pilot of a giant robot.



We are all brains trapped in a moist mech suit that wasn’t designed well and made of flesh and bone.


----------



## John R Davis (Jul 3, 2022)

One option, and a way to make piles cash is too make race/class combos ( needs a cool name). Career, Paths, et al.

So in PHB one for 5.5 ( 6th ed) are 30-60 of these things. So:
Human warlord.
Halfling cutpurse.
Orc warmaster.
Elf swordmage.
Elf Herald.
Dwarf stonepriest.
Dwarf Tinkerer.
Etc etc.
They have near set stat array, and are absolutely ready to play out the box.

Then in PHB Two you have 30 more.

Ad infinitum


----------

