I kind of like the way 3rd edition, as implemented in the Neverwinter Nights games, solves the balancing problem.
Giving humans a bonus feat at character creation is a pretty strong incentive to play human. I've often considered rolling an elf or half-orc, but I always wind up thinking, no, I want that feat!
Races that get stat bonuses, like Aasimar, suffer a one-level penalty through the whole game. That can be devastating in a campaign for character levels 1-10.
The favored class system also provides incentive to play human, as humans can choose any favored class.
But going back to 2nd edition and Baldur's Gate, the system of racial limitations in D&D is always designed to make playing human an attractive option. Whether it succeeds at that from edition to edition is a matter of opinion.
@Freche: Only sylvan elves can become druids in AD&D. Instead, other surface elves had the Herbalist priest kit, which is basically the same flavour as a druid. Drow on the other hand couldn't become druids at all (although many half-drows become gray druids).
On a similar note, halflings can both access the Leaftender priest kit and the druid class if I remember correctly.
But is there an actual reason behind why surface elves can't become druids (like they ain't granted powers or something similar) or is it just the rule book saying "nope"?
Yes, as I said above, Druidism is a human religion. Elves have their own religion. It is not Druidism. You may not like it, but it does have a rational basis.
Yes I understand that elves don't practice druidism in general, but what if a single elf is raised by druids, is there anything stopping him from gaining druidic powers if he practiced their religion?
I also prefer 3° ed too. AD&D is just too flawed in terms of rule coherence. I never liked the history behind NWN2, but his system is one of the most funs to use that i know. With a bit of fixes on the camera and other issues, that system would be totally nice to be played with an decent history.
@kamuizin and what happens when any race can dual class? humans will be the weakest, im not talking about now, I was talking about if all the restrictions were taken out, there would be no reason to be human, because if any race could dual class, all races can do things better than humans can, and that is why humans get more class options, because that is all they have going for them
i believe this discussion started with class restriction, if you advanced it to rules restriction and i didn't got it, then sorry for my mistake, i misunderstand your point. Really take off all rules would not be something good, but class restriction i don't see a reason to keep it.
If i had any say on D&D rules i would make humans have always +1 random stat, you don't choose it but at the end of the character creation when the game start this extra stat would be revealed.
@Freche: Only sylvan elves can become druids in AD&D. Instead, other surface elves had the Herbalist priest kit, which is basically the same flavour as a druid. Drow on the other hand couldn't become druids at all (although many half-drows become gray druids).
On a similar note, halflings can both access the Leaftender priest kit and the druid class if I remember correctly.
But is there an actual reason behind why surface elves can't become druids (like they ain't granted powers or something similar) or is it just the rule book saying "nope"?
Yes, as I said above, Druidism is a human religion. Elves have their own religion. It is not Druidism. You may not like it, but it does have a rational basis.
Yes I understand that elves don't practice druidism in general, but what if a single elf is raised by druids, is there anything stopping him from gaining druidic powers if he practiced their religion?
In PNP that would be entirely up to the individual DM. There is no reason why exceptions can't be made. I would expect in BG you could make such exceptions through Shadowkeeper. I know I have a half-elven Paladin in a current IWD game I'm playing, so Dale Keeper can do such non-standard tweaks pretty easily.
@kamuizin and what happens when any race can dual class? humans will be the weakest, im not talking about now, I was talking about if all the restrictions were taken out, there would be no reason to be human, because if any race could dual class, all races can do things better than humans can, and that is why humans get more class options, because that is all they have going for them
This has already been dealt with in later editions by giving Humans more skill/perk selections.
If it were done in Baldur's Gate, I'd give them a free weapon point of their choice they could put anywhere, to account for 'Human Versatility.'
There are some race/class restrictions that I disagree with. One of them is a paladin. Why can't a halfling or elf be a paladin for their god? Same goes with druids and rangers.
@Com_Solaufein im just guessing here but i think that for elves and halflings at the least cant become paladins because for elves: the seldarine doesnt really have a god of war, each sub race of the elves have their own god, then there is the trickster god, the god of nature, god of hunting, god of love and a god of philosophy and if we are talking about BG aka forgotten realms then there is sehanine moonbow the goddess of death and the moon but not in the evil kind so she doesnt need people spreading death for her and as such none of the elven gods need to have a divine champion running around and all they need is their dogma spreading around so they can be worshipped and you know....exist, thats left to the preists so paladins arent needed and im pretty sure the game goes for the halfling gods
Part of Corellon's portfolio is war and the halfing god Arvoreen is war and halfling warriors. Dwarves should definitely have paladins since they have a lot of warrior gods.
Corellarian Latherion is the Elven God of War, among other things.
There actually is what amounts to a Divine Champion fighter kit. Gets better saves (+1 to all at lvl 1, +1 per 4 levels), can lay on hands once per day at lvl 5, and can buy priest NCP for normal cost. Can't go beyond specialization, and loses all bonus abilities if they grossly violate their chosen deitys ideology until they can seek atonement and repent (unlike a paladin, it's rarely permanent unless they did something truly unforgivable to that faith, and even then, they could always switch to a new patron more suited to their temperment, though it would still require a quest to prove their worth). As a roleplaying restriction, they must undertake a quest that furthers their deities ideals in a non-trivial manner once a month or spend at least 2 weeks of a month performing minor duties for the clergy or lose their abilities until they complete 2 such quests or 4 weeks of duties for every month they missed.
Not really sure how to best implement it to BG though...
Possible Example -
Divine Champion - Fighter kit
Benefits -
+1 to all saves at creation. Bonus increases by +1 per 4 levels.
lvl 3: Can cast slow poison once per day. (replacing the priest NCP discount)
Lvl 5: Can cast a Lay on hands once per day.
Penalties - Cannot go beyond Specialization. Cannot use ranged weapons.
Mostly arbitrary, or based on Tolkienisms. There's really no reason for race class restrictions, which is why better editions don't have them.
"Better editions"? As in 3rd or 4th edition?
Like several others have already pointed out, 2nd edition was very liberal compared to original D&D, when being an Elf was a Class, not a Race.
Doesn't matter to me what edition I play. The fun is found in the story, and the players, not the rules. Good players + good DM = good fun. Or, in the case of computer RPGs, good story = good fun, as long as the rules are understood.
I would *MUCH* rather play original, 1st or 2nd edition D&D with some good, imaginative players + DM, than 3rd or 4th edition (or any other RPG, for that matter) with less entertaining people, even though the rules allow for more variety.
I used to think 3rd edition was awesome, since BG had been my only experience with 2nd....after actually looking into actual 2nd edition however, it's pretty badass, even just going by the rules as written.
I'll cautiously agree with you dwilliams (!). Although I strongly prefer the AD&D editions of the game (1E & 2E), the quality of the DM/Story Teller ultimately matters more than the rule set.
So much of what we're discussing here is purely an atmosphere issue. There is NO absolute "rule" for what sort of restrictions ultimately make sense. It's all about the setting and story being rational and consistent. In the setting I normally run I use a modified Greek Mythos as the divine component. Since Druidism is a whole different religion, I have disallowed it. There are no Druids in my game. Paladins are all worshippers of Athena. And I make them follow all the same weapon restrictions that specialty clerics of Athena follow in my world. Hermes is the God of Thieves. So a lot of Clerics of Hermes are multi-class thieves too. Makes for a fun religion... Hecate is the Goddess of Dark magic. So clerics of Hecate get a lot of Mage spells to choose from as extra powers, but they can't wear armor. Prometheus is the Neutral-Good protector of humanity. So I created a new NG holy warrior class that is a lot like a Paladin. Although they have better healing abilities, and weaker fighting abilities.
Why did I waste your time with all that? Just to illustrate the point that these things can be adapted or improvised infinitely within the basic 2E rules framework. In fact, the core rules actually suggest making these sort of changes to fit the rules to your own world. The Forgotten Realms (of which Baldur's Gate is a part) is the official campaign setting of the 2E rules. That does mean the core rules, and rules of the Realms would be expected to mesh perfectly. If non-human Druids aren't allowed in core 2E it stands to follow that the Realms would justify that restriction. Unfortunately, BG is a very basic implementation of both the rules and setting. So a lot of times, I think players will find it less frustrating if instead of assuming a rule or restriction doesn't make sense, an attempt was made to understand why that rule exists. Even if you don't end up liking the answer, there is almost always some reasoning behind it.
Race/class restrictions are dumb. They are the game telling you what paths your character is allowed to follow, which is just dumb. Rare cases like the Dwarven Defender rely on innate racial traits, but none of the core classes do this (except potentially sorcerer, but even then I'm dubious in the case of a child of a god). Cultural differences might make some sense in general, but a) they'd be more guidelines than rules, and b) they make no sense in BG because you're always brought up in Candlekeep by Gorion no matter what race you are.
Now, as for the balance concerns. This seems to rely on the "humans would be the worst race" argument, so I'll address that. It's intuitive to view the "humans can be any class they want" as an advantage, but it's not. If you had to roll your race randomly it would be an advantage, but since you don't, it's not. You see, when choosing which class to play, you can choose whatever race you want. If humans are strictly weaker than everything else (and dual-classing aside, they are), you'll simply never play human unless you have no other choice (from a powergaming perspective, which is where balance lives anyway). So paladins, monks, and some specialist mages will be humans, and no one else will be. That means that the lack of human racial bonuses can only be helpful to game balance for those classes. Everything else will just play another race. If humans are the worst race, but can be anything, there is no reason for me to ever play a human thief. I could just play an elf thief instead and get everything the human gets and more. So humans having greater flexibility does not actually enter into the balance argument at all (except for class balance for the classes that have to be human). The threat to balance is not allowing other races to play every class. The threat that poses is already in full force. The real threat to balance is that humans are blatantly and pointlessly weaker than the other races because a long time ago Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson weren't creative enough to come up with racial bonuses for humans. Well, unless you count dual-classing, in which case humans are blatantly and pointlessly stronger than the other races.
So yeah. If I were in the mod business, I'd open up all classes to all races, including multi- and dual-classing options, and come up with some racial bonus to give to humans. Maybe 10% innate magic resistance for being the non-magic race, or something.
Jarrakul you're looking at it only as a gamer who wants to play whatever you want to play. But I think a world with a mood and mythology of its own is far more interesting than just rules telling what I can or can't do. If Monks can only come from a particular sect in a far away land inhabited only humans or halflings, then that particular game will insist Monks have to be humans or halflings from that far away land. That is a rational game design. Its completely fine if you don't like the particular restrictions of a particular game. There's really a lot of other games out there to play. Believe me, there's plenty of settings I don't care for. And I don't play them. But that never makes any set of rules or restrictions "dumb". Well, maybe some are. Especially if they make no sense. But I'd rather a setting with well reasoned restrictions than one that is so wide open it has no sense of character or ambiance of its own. And I certainly don't think its fair to call Gygax and Arneson not creative! The whole fantasy gaming experience game from them! And they set up a game and setting that made sense to them. We are all indebted to their vision. That doesn't mean others can't design different fantasy games or settings. But it all started with them.
@actDave, I agree with you that sometimes cultural restrictions come into play, and barring a DM who can apply exceptions for players with good enough explanations, culture-based restrictions are probably a decent way to go. Or they would be, except that every single Baldur's Gate character has exactly the same cultural background, regardless of race: Candlekeep. So yes, in this case I'm gonna stick with calling this particular set of restrictions dumb.
Yeah, in fairness to Gygax and Arneson, they were actually creative enough to come up with advantages for humans. It's just that those advantages (level caps for non-humans) were so badly handled that almost no one ever played with them. Honestly, though, I think Gygax and Arneson were geniuses. They invented an entire genre of games! It's just that most of their ideas were awful. It's not really their fault. They had nothing to work with, no giants' shoulders to stand on. But that doesn't make the ideas themselves any better.
I think their ideas were awesome. For 5+ years I played in games that followed their basic vision with little modification and had a great time. In the 30 years since then I've seen those rules modified hundreds of different ways, and continued to have a great time with it all. The rules they designed made for a wonderful game, setting and experience all by themselves. They have been modified and developed countless times to even better things. But that never needs to diminish the wonder of that first accomplishment, or how completely playable that first vision is even today.
Part of Corellon's portfolio is war and the halfing god Arvoreen is war and halfling warriors. Dwarves should definitely have paladins since they have a lot of warrior gods.
while true they are gods of war, war isnt really a paladiny thing paladins are more knights of justice and good, and war isnt really a "good" act. if it was kratos would be the holiest man alive XD
See, "completely playable" is not a term I would use to describe the very first versions of D&D, except in the most literal sense that they are technically things that can be played. It's only barely a term I would use to describe ANY non-house-ruled version of D&D, to be perfectly honest. The more you try and play by the rules as written, the more they get in the way. Thank god for DMs, or I don't think I'd've ever gotten into roleplaying in the first place.
But my point here isn't to go on a rant against D&D. My point is that the lack of (remotely well-implemented) advantages for humans is a serious oversight in all versions of D&D up to 3rd Edition (and, as I understand it, is a problem in 4th as well).
In early editions bards was an human-only class because they had to attend special bardic colleges that were human only/only in human lands. Not just any fool with a lute and/or a penchant for sorcery.
In early editions bards was an human-only class because they had to attend special bardic colleges that were human only/only in human lands. Not just any fool with a lute and/or a penchant for sorcery.
Exactly right. And as a mythical basis, bards are drawn from the same Celtic origin as Druids. Its not unreasonable to link the two as a purely human institution.
@atcDave, I'd love to play in a well-designed Greek-gods based campaign! Although, I think that the Forgotten Realms pantheon and divinity system is one of the most interesting, engaging, and intriguing gaming divinity designs I've seen.
It seems to me that a lot of people with a horse in this race are focusing way more on mechanics than on story. Isn't the creation of an immersive, interactive fantasy world, with either yourself (for a crpg), or yourself and your friends, in the starring roles, the whole point of playing?
The mechanics are there to make the combat exciting, but the combat isn't supposed to be the ultimate goal. The *story* is supposed to be the ultimate goal.
The very first time I played D&D with a group of high school friends, in 1982, using 1st edition AD&D rule sourcebooks and materials, I played a mage named Barnabas. This was a campaign for characters of levels 1-4, and the DM had written *reams* of material for those levels - he had designed an entire continent for those levels.
Almost all of my friends played elf, half-elf, or dwarf multi-classes, with level restrictions, but not me. I wanted that "carrot on a stick" of thinking how my mage could become ultimately powerful, somewhere in the future, even if it would not be during "Mike's" campaign.
Mike allowed the possibility of psionics in his game, and I got a Las Vegas jackpot of rolling 00 on that roll check, so I had two psionic powers - psionic blast, and hypnotism, both determined by dice rolls.
I had so much fun with this level one character, and my friends adjusted their own story dramas (and comedies, since several of them were goofy kids), to my abilities. None of them had ever played a "weakling" mage before. They didn't think it was a viable character class in a 1-3 level game.
As I gained experience with the game, I started to feel guilty about my powers as a psionic mage. I started to think that I should be healing, and participating a bit more in melee combat. So, I asked Mike if Barnabas could have a "crisis of faith", convicted by "Roz" to follow the ways of the gods, and to become a cleric. He said, sure, but you'll have to go back to 0 xp as a cleric, and not use your Sleep spell until 1250 xp, but I'll still allow your psionics.
None of that would have been possible under the rules if I hadn't been playing human. Plus, Barnabas was designed by me to be hopelessly *human*. The roleplaying concept *matters*.
And, the possibility of dual-classing is a good incentive to be a human being. Humans have such short lifespans, we often explore every possibility in the shortest amount of time. If there were magical, enchanted beings like elves and dwarves, who are almost immortal by human standards, they would likely have a timeless, detached quality, and thus, a strong affinity for certain states of being, which translate into game rules as class and level restrictions.
TLDR: There have to be some advantages to playing a human in a fantasy setting. Otherwise, it becomes "Elfquest", or something. The story setting is way more important than the rules. Humans are supposed to be the stars of the show. For D&D, Tolkein is kind of like the story bible.
I see numerous flaws in my essay, but I'm too tired right now to revise it any more.
@scriver Which really doesn't make a lot of sense when most games take place in settings with cosmopolitan city-states.
@actDave Virtually every ancient culture has a keeper of tales, songs, and lore. The idea that elves don't have magical minstrels, is patently ridiculous.
@Schneidend, I agree with you in principle. The human restriction for the bard class is a carry over from its first edition origins. It originally required a very complicated dual classing sequence from fighter to thief to druid, where the final druid class would actually be the bard class.
Second edition streamlined the class a bit to make it its own first level class, and third edition opened it to all the races, as well as tweaking the spells.
The whole idea for a class called "bard" started out as a completely optional rule set in the appendices of the first edition AD&D books. It looks to me (opinion only) that it was loosely conceived as an attempt to incorporate more of the lore of Robin Hood, specifically Alan-a-Dale, into D&D, as that particular line of character development is not present in Tolkein.
It is important to me to note that the whole idea for a "bard" class was kind of an afterthought, relegated to the *appendices* of the AD&D player handbook. Honestly, I don't think it was "afterthought" out very well.
The wizards were originally the keepers of lore for the Tolkeinesque world. Music and poetry were important to all the races, but had absolutely nothing to do with combat.
It is still arguable whether the idea of a "bard" class is not one of the most ridiculous ideas to ever emerge from D&D. The film "Dorkness Rising" notably lampoons the class.
But, sure, if we're going to have a "bard" class, and, the best representation of that I've ever seen is Elan from "Order of the Stick", it should be open to all races. (It *can't* be a coincidence that the Giant chose the name "Elan", being so close to "Alan a Dale". Or maybe it is a coincidence. *shrug*)
I go back and forth on race restricted classes. On one hand I get that certain races don't have RP reasons to be a certain class. On the other hand I love characters like Mazzy who attempt to break these rules.
Belgarathmth sounds like our early days and experience are similar. I started in 1978, we were just playing D&D, we didn't even have 1E until a little later. But I remember those Psionics roles! Everyone else was always jealous of the lucky guy who had a psionic character; but somehow they always seemed to die ugly deaths quite quickly!
But I agree strongly the setting and story matter more to me than matters of pure mechanics. Ideally, I want the mechanics to be transparent, and interfere as little as possible. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy building and developing a character, but I like knowing that character's role in the world.
Comments
Giving humans a bonus feat at character creation is a pretty strong incentive to play human. I've often considered rolling an elf or half-orc, but I always wind up thinking, no, I want that feat!
Races that get stat bonuses, like Aasimar, suffer a one-level penalty through the whole game. That can be devastating in a campaign for character levels 1-10.
The favored class system also provides incentive to play human, as humans can choose any favored class.
But going back to 2nd edition and Baldur's Gate, the system of racial limitations in D&D is always designed to make playing human an attractive option. Whether it succeeds at that from edition to edition is a matter of opinion.
If i had any say on D&D rules i would make humans have always +1 random stat, you don't choose it but at the end of the character creation when the game start this extra stat would be revealed.
If it were done in Baldur's Gate, I'd give them a free weapon point of their choice they could put anywhere, to account for 'Human Versatility.'
There actually is what amounts to a Divine Champion fighter kit. Gets better saves (+1 to all at lvl 1, +1 per 4 levels), can lay on hands once per day at lvl 5, and can buy priest NCP for normal cost. Can't go beyond specialization, and loses all bonus abilities if they grossly violate their chosen deitys ideology until they can seek atonement and repent (unlike a paladin, it's rarely permanent unless they did something truly unforgivable to that faith, and even then, they could always switch to a new patron more suited to their temperment, though it would still require a quest to prove their worth). As a roleplaying restriction, they must undertake a quest that furthers their deities ideals in a non-trivial manner once a month or spend at least 2 weeks of a month performing minor duties for the clergy or lose their abilities until they complete 2 such quests or 4 weeks of duties for every month they missed.
Not really sure how to best implement it to BG though...
Possible Example -
Divine Champion - Fighter kit
Benefits -
+1 to all saves at creation. Bonus increases by +1 per 4 levels.
lvl 3: Can cast slow poison once per day. (replacing the priest NCP discount)
Lvl 5: Can cast a Lay on hands once per day.
Penalties -
Cannot go beyond Specialization.
Cannot use ranged weapons.
Like several others have already pointed out, 2nd edition was very liberal compared to original D&D, when being an Elf was a Class, not a Race.
Doesn't matter to me what edition I play. The fun is found in the story, and the players, not the rules. Good players + good DM = good fun. Or, in the case of computer RPGs, good story = good fun, as long as the rules are understood.
I would *MUCH* rather play original, 1st or 2nd edition D&D with some good, imaginative players + DM, than 3rd or 4th edition (or any other RPG, for that matter) with less entertaining people, even though the rules allow for more variety.
So much of what we're discussing here is purely an atmosphere issue. There is NO absolute "rule" for what sort of restrictions ultimately make sense. It's all about the setting and story being rational and consistent.
In the setting I normally run I use a modified Greek Mythos as the divine component. Since Druidism is a whole different religion, I have disallowed it. There are no Druids in my game.
Paladins are all worshippers of Athena. And I make them follow all the same weapon restrictions that specialty clerics of Athena follow in my world.
Hermes is the God of Thieves. So a lot of Clerics of Hermes are multi-class thieves too. Makes for a fun religion...
Hecate is the Goddess of Dark magic. So clerics of Hecate get a lot of Mage spells to choose from as extra powers, but they can't wear armor.
Prometheus is the Neutral-Good protector of humanity. So I created a new NG holy warrior class that is a lot like a Paladin. Although they have better healing abilities, and weaker fighting abilities.
Why did I waste your time with all that?
Just to illustrate the point that these things can be adapted or improvised infinitely within the basic 2E rules framework. In fact, the core rules actually suggest making these sort of changes to fit the rules to your own world.
The Forgotten Realms (of which Baldur's Gate is a part) is the official campaign setting of the 2E rules. That does mean the core rules, and rules of the Realms would be expected to mesh perfectly. If non-human Druids aren't allowed in core 2E it stands to follow that the Realms would justify that restriction.
Unfortunately, BG is a very basic implementation of both the rules and setting. So a lot of times, I think players will find it less frustrating if instead of assuming a rule or restriction doesn't make sense, an attempt was made to understand why that rule exists. Even if you don't end up liking the answer, there is almost always some reasoning behind it.
Now, as for the balance concerns. This seems to rely on the "humans would be the worst race" argument, so I'll address that. It's intuitive to view the "humans can be any class they want" as an advantage, but it's not. If you had to roll your race randomly it would be an advantage, but since you don't, it's not. You see, when choosing which class to play, you can choose whatever race you want. If humans are strictly weaker than everything else (and dual-classing aside, they are), you'll simply never play human unless you have no other choice (from a powergaming perspective, which is where balance lives anyway). So paladins, monks, and some specialist mages will be humans, and no one else will be. That means that the lack of human racial bonuses can only be helpful to game balance for those classes. Everything else will just play another race. If humans are the worst race, but can be anything, there is no reason for me to ever play a human thief. I could just play an elf thief instead and get everything the human gets and more. So humans having greater flexibility does not actually enter into the balance argument at all (except for class balance for the classes that have to be human). The threat to balance is not allowing other races to play every class. The threat that poses is already in full force. The real threat to balance is that humans are blatantly and pointlessly weaker than the other races because a long time ago Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson weren't creative enough to come up with racial bonuses for humans. Well, unless you count dual-classing, in which case humans are blatantly and pointlessly stronger than the other races.
So yeah. If I were in the mod business, I'd open up all classes to all races, including multi- and dual-classing options, and come up with some racial bonus to give to humans. Maybe 10% innate magic resistance for being the non-magic race, or something.
But that never makes any set of rules or restrictions "dumb". Well, maybe some are. Especially if they make no sense. But I'd rather a setting with well reasoned restrictions than one that is so wide open it has no sense of character or ambiance of its own.
And I certainly don't think its fair to call Gygax and Arneson not creative! The whole fantasy gaming experience game from them! And they set up a game and setting that made sense to them. We are all indebted to their vision. That doesn't mean others can't design different fantasy games or settings. But it all started with them.
Yeah, in fairness to Gygax and Arneson, they were actually creative enough to come up with advantages for humans. It's just that those advantages (level caps for non-humans) were so badly handled that almost no one ever played with them. Honestly, though, I think Gygax and Arneson were geniuses. They invented an entire genre of games! It's just that most of their ideas were awful. It's not really their fault. They had nothing to work with, no giants' shoulders to stand on. But that doesn't make the ideas themselves any better.
The rules they designed made for a wonderful game, setting and experience all by themselves. They have been modified and developed countless times to even better things. But that never needs to diminish the wonder of that first accomplishment, or how completely playable that first vision is even today.
But my point here isn't to go on a rant against D&D. My point is that the lack of (remotely well-implemented) advantages for humans is a serious oversight in all versions of D&D up to 3rd Edition (and, as I understand it, is a problem in 4th as well).
In early editions bards was an human-only class because they had to attend special bardic colleges that were human only/only in human lands. Not just any fool with a lute and/or a penchant for sorcery.
It seems to me that a lot of people with a horse in this race are focusing way more on mechanics than on story. Isn't the creation of an immersive, interactive fantasy world, with either yourself (for a crpg), or yourself and your friends, in the starring roles, the whole point of playing?
The mechanics are there to make the combat exciting, but the combat isn't supposed to be the ultimate goal. The *story* is supposed to be the ultimate goal.
The very first time I played D&D with a group of high school friends, in 1982, using 1st edition AD&D rule sourcebooks and materials, I played a mage named Barnabas. This was a campaign for characters of levels 1-4, and the DM had written *reams* of material for those levels - he had designed an entire continent for those levels.
Almost all of my friends played elf, half-elf, or dwarf multi-classes, with level restrictions, but not me. I wanted that "carrot on a stick" of thinking how my mage could become ultimately powerful, somewhere in the future, even if it would not be during "Mike's" campaign.
Mike allowed the possibility of psionics in his game, and I got a Las Vegas jackpot of rolling 00 on that roll check, so I had two psionic powers - psionic blast, and hypnotism, both determined by dice rolls.
I had so much fun with this level one character, and my friends adjusted their own story dramas (and comedies, since several of them were goofy kids), to my abilities. None of them had ever played a "weakling" mage before. They didn't think it was a viable character class in a 1-3 level game.
As I gained experience with the game, I started to feel guilty about my powers as a psionic mage. I started to think that I should be healing, and participating a bit more in melee combat. So, I asked Mike if Barnabas could have a "crisis of faith", convicted by "Roz" to follow the ways of the gods, and to become a cleric. He said, sure, but you'll have to go back to 0 xp as a cleric, and not use your Sleep spell until 1250 xp, but I'll still allow your psionics.
None of that would have been possible under the rules if I hadn't been playing human. Plus, Barnabas was designed by me to be hopelessly *human*. The roleplaying concept *matters*.
And, the possibility of dual-classing is a good incentive to be a human being. Humans have such short lifespans, we often explore every possibility in the shortest amount of time. If there were magical, enchanted beings like elves and dwarves, who are almost immortal by human standards, they would likely have a timeless, detached quality, and thus, a strong affinity for certain states of being, which translate into game rules as class and level restrictions.
TLDR: There have to be some advantages to playing a human in a fantasy setting. Otherwise, it becomes "Elfquest", or something. The story setting is way more important than the rules. Humans are supposed to be the stars of the show. For D&D, Tolkein is kind of like the story bible.
I see numerous flaws in my essay, but I'm too tired right now to revise it any more.
Which really doesn't make a lot of sense when most games take place in settings with cosmopolitan city-states.
@actDave
Virtually every ancient culture has a keeper of tales, songs, and lore. The idea that elves don't have magical minstrels, is patently ridiculous.
Second edition streamlined the class a bit to make it its own first level class, and third edition opened it to all the races, as well as tweaking the spells.
The whole idea for a class called "bard" started out as a completely optional rule set in the appendices of the first edition AD&D books. It looks to me (opinion only) that it was loosely conceived as an attempt to incorporate more of the lore of Robin Hood, specifically Alan-a-Dale, into D&D, as that particular line of character development is not present in Tolkein.
It is important to me to note that the whole idea for a "bard" class was kind of an afterthought, relegated to the *appendices* of the AD&D player handbook. Honestly, I don't think it was "afterthought" out very well.
The wizards were originally the keepers of lore for the Tolkeinesque world. Music and poetry were important to all the races, but had absolutely nothing to do with combat.
It is still arguable whether the idea of a "bard" class is not one of the most ridiculous ideas to ever emerge from D&D. The film "Dorkness Rising" notably lampoons the class.
But, sure, if we're going to have a "bard" class, and, the best representation of that I've ever seen is Elan from "Order of the Stick", it should be open to all races. (It *can't* be a coincidence that the Giant chose the name "Elan", being so close to "Alan a Dale". Or maybe it is a coincidence. *shrug*)
Neverwinter Nights 2 even has a Halfling bard.
I go back and forth on race restricted classes. On one hand I get that certain races don't have RP reasons to be a certain class. On the other hand I love characters like Mazzy who attempt to break these rules.
But I agree strongly the setting and story matter more to me than matters of pure mechanics. Ideally, I want the mechanics to be transparent, and interfere as little as possible. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy building and developing a character, but I like knowing that character's role in the world.