At the begining of time why were the 'Adventuring Professions' called 'C!asses'?


Gamer Life General Discussion

Shadow Lodge

Anyone know why, at the start of the D&D era, the adventuring professions were called claases?


Because of this definition of class: "a group, set, or kind sharing common attributes"

Basically? It was a classification of how you adventured/fought. Not your actual profession.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Men & Magic wrote:

Before they begin, players must decide what role they will play in the campaign, human or otherwise, fighter, cleric, or magic-user. Thereafter they will work upwards — if they survive — as they gain “experience.” First, however, it is necessary to describe fully the roles possible.

CHARACTERS:
There are three (3) main classes of characters:
Fighting-Men
Magic-Users
Clerics

And thus is history made.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazuka wrote:
It was a classification of how you adventured/fought. Not your actual profession.

That is incorrect. Prior to 3rd edition, the classes were treated as the character's professions.

Here's an example of the language used from the introduction to the chapter on character classes in the 2nd edition PHB:

2nd Edition AD&D Players Handbook wrote:

A character class is like a profession or career. It is what your character has worked and trained at during his younger years...

The character classes are divided into four groups according to general occupations: warrior, wizard, priest, and rogue...

Here is another example of the language used at the end of the chapter on character classes disusing the rules of "Dual-Classing":

2nd Edition AD&D Players Handbook wrote:
Once he leaves a class he has finished his studies in it

Which meant he could no longer advance in levels in the old class.

So if classes were just how the character "adventured and fought", would it stand to reason that one should be able to continue advancing within every class the character has?

But see, the language used indicates that he had finished his studies in that particular field and could thus learn no more from it...

I realize to the modern gamer, this is hogwash, but it does illustrate that in those earlier editions, classes were treated as much more than just a set of skills.

And there are plenty of other examples of how class = profession/career spread throughout both the PHB and the DMG, and that is just 2nd edition; 1st edition also used such terms and language.


The profession was 'adventurer'. The types of adventurer are 'classes'.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Except for the part on making classes that tells you not to make ones that are just occupations.


Yes, there was indeed a time when classes were important and had meaning beyond, "Here are the things I get."

Becoming a Paladin meant something. Being a Wizard meant years of devoted study.

In modern gaming... Not so much.


TRPGs developed from tabletop wargaming, so the idea of characters having classes originates from wargaming rules about units with different abilities, I believe.

Elf, dwarf, and halfling used to be their own classes... so yeah, I'd say the original idea of character classes isn't solely a character's occupation, but rather some combination of that and their role in the party.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Yes, there was indeed a time when classes were important and had meaning beyond, "Here are the things I get."

Becoming a Paladin meant something. Being a Wizard meant years of devoted study.

In modern gaming... Not so much.

Think the biggest issues there are those who look at too much meaning in the classes. 'Ninja' as a class is inspired by ... well, ninja, but some folks would rather not be assumed to dress as kabuki stagehands all the time. Paladin's another example.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Yes, there was indeed a time when classes were important and had meaning beyond, "Here are the things I get."

Becoming a Paladin meant something. Being a Wizard meant years of devoted study.

In modern gaming... Not so much.

Isn't it wonderful that we've finally put those dark days behind us?


Jacob Saltband wrote:
Anyone know why, at the start of the D&D era, the adventuring professions were called claases?

All the people you can ask are dead.


"Pick class" was Cockney rhyming slang for what adventurers were (ideally) supposed to do and what (realistically) was done unto them.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Anyone know why, at the start of the D&D era, the adventuring professions were called claases?
All the people you can ask are dead.

I don't know, DrDeth is usually around and I'm fairly sure they're from that time and place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neurophage wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Yes, there was indeed a time when classes were important and had meaning beyond, "Here are the things I get."

Becoming a Paladin meant something. Being a Wizard meant years of devoted study.

In modern gaming... Not so much.

Isn't it wonderful that we've finally put those dark days behind us?

No, of course not. Don't you realize that the absolute last person that should have any say in what a character is, what they're able to do, and how much those two things have to do with each other is the player of said character? A game designer designing for an entire customer base is obviously supposed to have more say in the confluence of class and concept in a character of which he will never hear of a player he will never meet than said player.

...

Some people, sad to say, will take the above at face value. The above is not supposed to be taken that way. It was said sarcastically. That this must be explained is a condemnation of us as a species.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Equally obvious of course is that game designers should have no say at all in "what a character is, what they're able to do, and how much those two things have to do with each other".

Some people, sad to say, will take the above at face value. The above is not supposed to be taken that way. It was said sarcastically. That this must be explained is a condemnation of us as a species.


One good reason that classes are how they are now is to open up roleplay and storytelling options. Rogues don't always learn their skills from a thieves' guild, and not all wizards go to wizard school. In fact, why couldn't a wizard school have some side courses for materials acquisition experts, or a thieves' guild a training programme for arcane recon and troubleshooting?

Not for everyone, of course, but there's no reason why your paladin can't be Captain Bloodprow, the most notorious pirate of the sea, who found faith one stormy night and now sails to send the most abhorrent of buccaneers to face judgement at the bottom of the ocean. (Unless it's a desert campaign.) And it still lets you be Dame Purity who grew up at a cathedral learning holy martial arts too.


thejeff wrote:
Equally obvious of course is that game designers should have no say at all in "what a character is, what they're able to do, and how much those two things have to do with each other."

When the game designer is allegedly designing a game, something that a participant should be looking forward to being involved in instead of cringing at the prospect, and the say that the designer wishes to have directly negatively impacts that basic principle, you're darned right.

Kind of like how it does no good to profess to design a car and then deliberately build it to not have a steering column or even wheels. If you wanted to build a giant paperweight, fine. Please do so. Just advertise it as such from the getgo.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tectorman wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Equally obvious of course is that game designers should have no say at all in "what a character is, what they're able to do, and how much those two things have to do with each other."

When the game designer is allegedly designing a game, something that a participant should be looking forward to being involved in instead of cringing at the prospect, and the say that the designer wishes to have directly negatively impacts that basic principle, you're darned right.

Kind of like how it does no good to profess to design a car and then deliberately build it to not have a steering column or even wheels. If you wanted to build a giant paperweight, fine. Please do so. Just advertise it as such from the getgo.

Except the part that makes it a game is the limitations. Without those, we're just playing make believe.

I've played plenty of role-playing games with limitations designed in, some even far beyond Pathfinder or even AD&D, without cringing and even with great enjoyment.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Neurophage wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Yes, there was indeed a time when classes were important and had meaning beyond, "Here are the things I get."

Becoming a Paladin meant something. Being a Wizard meant years of devoted study.

In modern gaming... Not so much.

Isn't it wonderful that we've finally put those dark days behind us?

I for one think so. And I was there. Now we get things, and we can decide what to do with them.

Though to be fair, even back then we got stuff, and could decide what we could do with it, but... we didn't get so much. ;)

Community & Digital Content Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts. Everyone plays the game differently, and condescending commentary isn't necessary.


I'm guessing it's to differentiate the character's skill set from their occupation. This greatly increases the number of concepts that can be played in the game.

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / At the begining of time why were the 'Adventuring Professions' called 'C!asses'? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion