Another Bard

In addition to curating spell lists (and deciding the difference between "normal" clerics and their devil-worshipping counterparts) I spent a lot of March/April doing deep dives into the various 1E classes and how/if they needed to be modified for MY particular game world. For the most part, the answer came back: nope.

[in a future post, I'll discuss my deep dive on the whole of race-class-level interactions which was the FIRST thing I scrutinized. However, since I ended up with almost ZERO changes to the PHB standard; I'll save that for a different day]

In some cases, this is just "being practical." Take the monk class as a prime example: there's a lot about the class as written that I dislike. The way it "breaks" normal rules (like ability score adjustments) over and over again. The hodgepodge of special abilities that range from Remo William to David Carradine to St. Francis of Assisi. Surprise adjustments. Just a lot of stuff that could stand to be cleaned up.

Thing is: it doesn't matter at the moment. None of my players are playing a monk. I have no experience playing monks. I don't have any experience running games with players who had monks. I just haven't seen how monks unfold over time in actual play. Yes, I've run NPC monks, both as antagonists and as allies. But if you're not starting them at level 1 and seeing the actual progress, it's difficult to judge just how the character is going to turn out.

So I'm leaving it alone for now. Well, mostly. Originally, the monk was a subclass of cleric and I've put it back into that category (my monk uses the cleric tables for both attacks AND saving throws). And I'm considering upping the hit die type to D6s rather than D4s based on what hit points represent, how they function, the monk's role, and general consistency with other subclasses. But otherwise, if a 5th level or 10th level or whatever level NPC monk is encountered, it will be exactly as written in the PHB. I'll worry about revamping the class if and when I have a chance to observe one in the campaign.

[as a side note, I'll say that I'm quite satisfied with the monk class's unarmed combat skills and how they model within the AD&D combat system...but that, too, is its own discussion]

The bard, however, is a completely different story. 

I've had a LOT of experience with the 1st edition bard. I played bards pretty much exclusively in the days of my youth (well, after we started playing AD&D). And I wasn't the only one. At least three other bards (not played by myself) made prominent appearances in our games, although one (Rob's bard, Taliesin) was short-lived as he was sacrificed by the other PCs to the Machine of Lum the Mad in order to power its planar travel ability. Ah, yes...good times...

A lot of folks look at the 1E bard as written and consider its requirements so onerous as to make playing one prohibitive, but such just isn't the case in my experience. Assuming one has the proper ability scores to qualify, a character can hit the 5th level fighter / 6th level thief mark necessary to begin her bard career with a mere 38,000 x.p. ...hardly daunting when you consider several classes (including rangers, paladins, and magic-users) require more than 40K just to hit 6th level. And a bard that spends the time to get to 7th / 8th level (the BTB maximum per most folks' interpretation) only requires 140,000 x.p.; that sum wouldn't even get a fighter to 9th level.

So...easy-shmeazy. I advanced one of my bards from 0 x.p. in his first class all the way to the high teens in our first "all AD&D" campaign (i.e. our first "by the book" stab at running AD&D with no B/X rule influence/interference). Considering racial level restrictions, it was always a good choice for players who wanted to play half-elves (who didn't?)...and for folks who liked a lot of options (fighting, thieving, spell use) it was quite the no brainer, although the bard's abilities were generally dwarfed by straight fighters, magic-users, and clerics especially at the higher levels.

However, despite the bard class's functionality in play (based on my actual, non-theoretical experience), the design of the class doesn't work with the paradigm of my campaign world in two major regards:

• the class switching aspect (based on my assumptions of how an adventurer's class skills are learned), and
• the connection/ties to the druid sect

The latter issue is due partly to world building (I really want these two classes to be separate entities) and partly due to practicality (in practice, I don't like bards using the same high level abilities of the druid...like shapeshifting...and I don't see the class using the druidic spells in the same spirit/form as a true druid). It makes the bard feel like a subclass of druid...and the druid is already a subclass. I find that distasteful these days, though I could learn to live with it (we had no qualms doing so as youths).

However, the class switching bit is the real stickler. As I wrote the other day, I've gone through and rewritten the age tables, partly because I've shortened nonhuman lifespans considerably (most are now more-or-less human scale), and partly based on what I feel are appropriate lengths of learning time for a young person to be singled out for training and then complete a course of study and practice such that they'd qualify to be a 1st level character of a given class. 

As such, I find that I dislike the standard "dual class" rules given in AD&D (which are based on the simpler form of class switching given in Volume 1 of OD&D) that allow any human to automatically become a "new class" for which they meet the required ability score minimums. No, that doesn't work for me that (for example) you are suddenly a magic-user based solely on your possession of a high intelligence score. Un-uh.

With regard to dual class characters, my solution has been to do a bit of retroactive imagining for any player that wishes to go down this path: instead of the character "suddenly learning" the new skills, we assume that the new class was, in fact, the character's original training that (at some point, for some reason) was set-aside to pursue her current adventuring class...and NOW the character has decided to return to that "original class," forever giving up the progress she made on her "side career."

And then we add seven years to the character's age...the PC is (retconned) to be older than previously assumed.

That's the easy fix; dual-classed characters still get to be played, but they take an age penalty (in addition to the normal restrictions) in order to maintain the integrity of the (game) world functions. Unfortunately, that doesn't work for a bard who is supposed to progress consecutively through three classes, learning skills and retaining them as an eclectic jack-of-trades. Hence the need for a rewrite. 

In figuring out a "better bard," I looked at the original class (as found in the The Strategic Review) which is different from the AD&D version and includes justifications/references for its design. I also looked at later Dragon magazine articles suggesting various "fixes" of the class, including the variant bard ("Singing A New Tune") and curated spell list ("Songs Instead Of Spells") both found in issue #56. 

Taken in conjunction with the class as presented in the PHB, I decided on a relatively simple rewrite:

1. The bard is a single class.
2. The experience table is the same as that given on page 117 of the PHB (the bard starts at 1st level and requires 2,001 experience to reach 2nd level, etc.).
3. The bard is restricted to 23 levels of experience. It uses 6-sided hit dice and receives one hit die at every level of experience (as is the case with all limited level classes) to a maximum of 23d6. This means that my bard's hit point will, on average, be less than the 1E bard as written (with a lower maximum).
4. Number of spells by spell level are the same as listed on page 117; however, I have curated a specific "bard spell list," drawing spells (songs) from a variety of lists, not limited to druidic magic.
5. Bards attack as a fighter of one-half level, rounded down (a 1st level bard attacks as a 0-level man); they do not receive multiple attacks.
6. Beginning at 2nd level, bards have the same abilities as a thief of one-half their bard level rounded down; they have no backstabbing ability.
7. Armor is limited to non-bulky types; weapons are as per the PHB. Three weapon proficiencies to start (1/4) with a -3 penalty for non-weapon proficiency.
8. Charm ability as per Bard Table II (page 118); legend lore ability same but with slightly higher chances up through level 7 (10% at 1st level). Other bardic abilities as per the PHB.
9. Minimum ability scores: STR 9, INT 12, WIS 9, DEX 13, CHA 15. Dexterity adjusts thief abilities as normal. Charisma 17 adds +5% to charm; charisma 18 adds +10% to charm ability. Wisdom adjusts spells known as per cleric/druid (and affects spell failure chance). Additional languages known are per INT, but the bard knows them beginning at 1st level.
10. Humans and half-elves may progress to a maximum of 23rd level; dwarves, elves, and halflings may progress to a maximum of 8th level. Demihuman bards may not multi-class.

This bard has yet to be play-tested, but I have high hopes for it.

: )

"Want to join our party? We
don't play with alignment."

Supernatural

When I writing about rangers in yesterday's post (a post in which I expressed a near 180 degree turn on the subject of the class's inclusion), I mentioned I'd deal with the alignment issue in a separate blog entry. This is it.

First: the preamble. Lots of hate for the concept of alignment out there. I've vented my own spleen on the subject, most recently just a couple months back. Today, I'm not out to change anyone's mind on the subject...of the folks whom I respect and follow on Ye Old Interwebs, I've seen good arguments both for and against and this post isn't about picking sides or shaping opinion; DMs simply need to get things right in their own head so that they can run their game with aplomb and efficiency.

Second (aka Preamble Part Deux): this post is specifically aimed at addressing alignment restrictions with regard to class and (even more specifically) with regard to the ranger class (yes, it's "Ranger Week" here at the 'ol B/X Blackrazor blog). Other issues with regard to alignment (especially as relates to constraints on player behavior and its role in inciting intra-party conflict) I reserve for a later post.

Okay...all the ground rules laid out? Cool.

The ranger is one of three classes in the PHB that have "flame out" clause in its contract with regard to alignment, the other two being the paladin and the monk. Here's the explicit text, keeping in mind that the ranger is restricted to one of the three "good" languages (lawful good, neutral good, or chaotic good):

"Any change to non-good alignment immediately strips the ranger of all benefits, and the character becomes a fighter, with eight-sided hit dice, ever after, and can never regain ranger status."

In some ways, this is a bit harsher than the paladin strictures as by the letter of the book, any change (even, presumably, an alignment changing curse or magic item), will permanently strip the character of abilities AND leave the character as a weakened version of the fighter (using only D8s for hit dice instead of D10s). A fallen paladin, on the other hand, has to knowingly commit an act against her alignment...and would (at worst) retain D10s if reduced to an ordinary fighter.

[the consequences of a monk's deviation is incredibly interesting, even as it is especially tough: the character "loses all monk abilities and must begin again as a first level character." But a a first level what? A fighter? A magic-user? With such high ability scores required for the monk, most classes should be open to the now non-lawful character]

However, with regard to the ranger, it hasn't been the harshness of the penalty that's long bugged me: it's the penalty itself. I can understand the paladin's loss of abilities: the paladin concept is one of a holy warrior, granted many divine boons (save bonuses, immunity to disease, magic horses, healing hands) based on the character's inherent goodness and holiness. These are gifts from God (or the gods or whatever) a reward for a saintly individual doing The Lord's Work. Stumble on the path and, yea, you shall be smote, etc. They are supernatural abilities, not hard won skills, and metaphysical transgressions can result in them going away.

But many of the ranger's abilities...tracking, fighting giants, sneaking up on opponents, reading magic-user spells...seem far more grounded skills, earned through training ad practice, not bestowed by some divinity. I can get behind the idea that a ranger's bonus damage is based on the righteousness of her wrath and that this might disappear with a change in alignment (likewise magical abilities, specifically the druid ones). But tracking? I turn evil and suddenly forget how to spot footprints? What's up with that?

I must not be the only person who had this thought, as the 2nd edition of AD&D removed the consequences of alignment change from the ranger class (instead penalizing the class, like paladins, for "intentional evil acts"). 3rd edition D&D even took it a step forward, addressing the unspoken question "can't evil individuals track and hunt?" removing all alignment requirements from the ranger class.

[I'd like to make note at this point that MOST of the character classes in AD&D have alignment constraints: the cleric, druid, thief, assassin, and bard all have restrictions on their allowable alignment. However, unlike the aforementioned paladin, monk, and ranger, NO SPECIFIC CONSEQUENCES are noted for these characters, should they deviate from their alignment. Yes, clerics can have their spells withheld for failing to follow the tenets/ethics of their faith, and all characters are presumed to suffer the effects listed on page 25 of the DMG (i.e. level loss)...however, if my thief or assassin decides to "go good" and is willing take the XP hit, what's the prob? Apparently not much, other than a discombobulation with regard to alignment language]

Why should the metaphysical (alignment behavior, spiritual devotion, etc.) have consequences on the physical (ability to track, ability to cast spells, ability to both surprise AND be more alert)? It doesn't make sense for the supernatural to affect the natural...does it?

Here's the thing I realized: my gripe is based on my own post-Modern, secular perspective. A couple-few centuries ago, people ABSOLUTELY considered the metaphysical to affect the physical. Causation was based on far more than that which could be observed or scientifically proven. What a person of the 21st century might call "superstition" was an acceptable part of life and the natural world.

Even today, we have superstitions. I'm superstitious (I think this is probably more common with sports fans): I avoid walking under ladders and feel uncomfortable when a black cat crosses my path. Do I really believe that breaking a mirror will bring seven years of bad luck? No. But I still have my game day rituals when watching a Seahawks game (like not drinking a beer until they've scored a touchdown), which I feel somehow will influence the result...despite any observable causal effect.

Medieval humans were far more superstitious. They lived with spirits and folklore and magic as a part of their daily life. The "evil eye" could kill you. Treating the dead with less than healthy respect could lead to haunts and visitations (or possession!). Excommunication from the church could imperil your mortal soul. Failing to make the proper sacrifice (or seeing the wrong omen) could lead to defeat in battle.

D&D works in THIS mindset. It is fantasy, after all...it is chock full of magic and the irrational. The idea that a ranger would lose her ability to follow tracks seems as preposterous to me as the idea that masturbation makes you go blind...but I don't live in a world of wizards and elves and dragons. Why shouldn't an evil-aligned ranger suddenly lose the ability to do anything but hack and slash? The resulting causation of the metaphysical crime is supernatural...but in a fantasy setting, the supernatural is natural. It's not just a matter of playing the game "by the book;" it's a matter of establishing the proper headspace to run the campaign setting in a justifiable fashion.

Which is what I want as a DM: as I wrote in yesterday's post, I think it's imperative that a Dungeon Master gets her head right with regard to how and why the "physics" of the setting work. Doing so makes it much easier to speak and run the game with authority, satisfying questions that arise in play (both her own and those of her players) and permitting focus to rest squarely in the realm of play.

Now, I admit that there's still a question about other, non-good types having the ability to track individuals...but that's a question to be answered in a different post. Regarding the ranger, I feel my concerns have all been addressed.

Hmm...maybe I should have saved
this post for Friday (the 13th).

Holmes Rules: The Monk

[this is part...I don't remember...in an on-going series revamping OD&D subclasses for use with Holmes Basic. You can find the paladin and ranger here, the witch here, the illusionist (part 1 and part 2), and the druid (part 1 and part 2) all available for use. I've had some time to stew on my monk musings and analysis from yesterday, and decided that the most important thing I can do is make it a class that I'D like to play (yet still remaining focused and thematically consistent). It may look a little different from what you expected...]

Monks -- instead of dedicating themselves to a particular deity, some clerics devote themselves to understanding the gods' greatest creation: the human mind-body temple. Though their first priority is their own self-development, many belong to monastic orders, providing each other with mutual teaching and support on the path to enlightenment. Sometimes, these orders attach themselves to a clerical group or institution, acting as muscle for the church.

The Scarlet Brotherhood
might require its own post.

A cleric must have a minimum strength of 10 and dexterity of 11 to become a monk. Monks do not wear armor or use shields, but they are trained in the use of all weapons (monks of good alignment will still refrain from using edged weapons). They do not cast spells, nor can they turn undead, but they do enjoy a +2 bonus to saving throws to resist mind-affecting magic (charms, etc.). A monk is only ever surprised on a roll of a 1, they may move silently as a thief of equal level, and they use the rate of speed given for an unarmored man.

Because of their training, monks excel at unarmed combat. They move with such preternatural grace and quickness that they subtract one-half their level (round up) from opponents' attack rolls, and non-magical missiles may be dodged/deflected by monks who make a successful saving throw. Their unarmed attacks do D6 damage on a successful attack roll, and if maximum damage (6) is rolled, they may choose one of the following maneuvers in place of damage:

• Disarm (opponent's weapon now in monk's possession)
• Disable (opponent suffers -2 to attack rolls for D6 rounds)
• Hold (opponent may take no action as long as monk maintains lock; monk may not act either)
• Knockout (opponent must save of be knocked senseless for D12 rounds)
• Takedown (opponent loses next action standing up)

Maneuvers always work against opponents of human size (or smaller); however, monks may also use these maneuvers on monsters whose hit dice do not exceed one-half their level of experience (for example, an 8th level monk could takedown a 4 hit dice ogre). Monks who have reached 5th level may execute a maneuver on a damage roll of 5 or 6; monks of 9th level make execute a maneuver on a 4, 5, or 6.

Monks are adept at meditation, and may use it to a number of effects. The monk may slow their body functions (heart rate, breathing, etc.) to the point that they can resist the effect of poisons and toxins, or appear dead to observers (maximum of 1 turn per level). They may heal themselves (curing D4 hit points +1 hit point per level), and monks of at least 5th level can use this effect to cure disease as well. A monk of 9th level can focus their inner power into their hands in order to make a fatal strike: the next opponent hit in unarmed combat must save or die immediately. Each of these meditation effects (slowed body, healing, or fatal strike) can be performed but once per day.

Monks practice non-attachment: they give all treasure to their order, and may retain a maximum of four magic items, plus up to two magic weapons. They may use any magic item (save armor) not restricted to a particular class. Monks may never have hirelings or followers. A monk's level determines her place in the hierarchy of her order; upon reaching maximum level (12th) she must challenge the master of the order for leadership. If she fails (and survives), she loses the level (goes back to the minimum experience needed for 11th level). Any time after reaching 9th level, a monk may leave the order to found her own; it will gradually attract new novices (1st level monks) over several months.

[all right, that's a little longer than I expected it to be, but I really liked how it turned out. Even though Holmes doesn't go into the "name level" type stuff, I thought it important to write a bit about the monastic order and how it functions. If this were in some kind of "Holmes Companion" book, this information would be important to the setting material; if I ever run a Holmes campaign, it will be important material]

[by the way, this IS a monk I'd be interested in playing]

[oh, yeah...and it's my birthday today]

Monk Dissection

[I know I've been writing a lot today. It's been productive for blogging...and not much else. If you missed my earlier loooong post on the origins of the monk, and my initial analysis, you can find it right here; hmmm...maybe I should schedule this one to post later tonight. Nah...]

[pulled some interesting images from Google with that title, BTW]

As I did with druids, sometimes it's easiest to simply deconstruct the whole damn thing (tear it down) in order to (re-)build a better mechanism. Personally, I really like how the druid turned out...that's a character class I wouldn't mind playing (which is something I could've said before). I'm hopeful I can get similar results for the monk.

First, though, the cleric...here's what a cleric looks like mechanically:

1. Prime Requisite: Wisdom (better saves with my Holmes house rules).
2. No required ability scores.
3. Restricted to humans.
4. May be any alignment.
5. Armor: Any + Shield (should be pretty good AC, approaching Holmes max).
6. Weapons: non-edged (house rule for evil clerics: no restriction).
7. Hit Dice: 6-sided.
8. Turn Dead (good clerics only).
9. Spells (beginning at level 2).
10. Some magic staffs restricted to clerical use.
11. Possibility of clerical scrolls (mentioned in the magic section, but in the treasure section states spell scrolls "can only be read by magic-users." House rule needed).
12. No special abilities like those described in Supplement II (Blackmoor).

I'm pretty sure that's it. Now we'll look at our monk subclass, consider it's theme/concept, and see what needs to be adjusted. Let's do it by the numbers.

1. Prime Requisite: pretty safe to say this remains as wisdom. I'm not a big fan of screwing around too much with prime reqs (requiring multiple high abilities or cutting out a class's XP bonus completely). For a Holmes game, I'd certainly want to keep it simple...the monk earns bonus experience for having a high wisdom score.

2. Required Abilities: Blackmoor originally required wisdom and dexterity of 15 and strength of 12, none of which has much impact on the character. Monk skills are, for the most part, tied to level...an experienced monk has more powers than an inexperienced monk. Wisdom helps speed rate of advancement, but I don't think we need that...monastic orders will probably accept anyone, but poor students (i.e. "unwise ones") will progress at a slower pace. On the other hand, a certain amount of physical skill is needed for their hand-to-hand combat skills, though we won't need it high enough to get bonuses. Call it a minimum of 10 in STR and 11 in DEX.

3. Restricted to Humans: much as I like my Hin Warrior Monks, I'll stand pat.

4. No Alignment Restriction: I like evil and chaotic monks (see the main villain in Iron Monkey). However, I doubt a Chaotic type would have the patience and discipline to progress far. Eh...let it stand for now.

5. Armor: Here's where it gets interesting. It ain't a monk if you're wearing armor. However, Holmes armor class works a little different from other editions, being based on actual armor worn. While I can see a monk toughening their flesh by taking "sand baths" and whatnot, they're still only AC 9. I think that I'd prefer to handle a monk's increased defensive value in the same way Holmes handles magical armor: by subtracting the bonus from an opponent's attack roll. In the case of the monk, we'll go ahead and give him a +1 bonus per two levels (rounded up). Since my classes are only going to go 12 or 13 levels, that's not too crazy. And I like the smaller AC range of Holmes.

6. Weapons: I would neither add nor subtract any weapons from their (alignment dependent) list. Neither would I add the Blackmoor half-point-per-level damage bonus. As for unarmed attacks, there I would do an increased damage progression, though not on the scale of Blackmoor...we are talking about the human body, which is never going to inflict more damage than a well-swung battle axe. Call it D4 for the first three levels, D6 for levels four to six, and D8 thereafter (have you tried punching steel gauge armor?). Likewise, no multiple attacks (yet)...the attack roll takes into account multiple swings and kicks, etc. Level determines your success at landing a (damaging) blow(s), and the damage roll gives you an idea of how effective the blow was. That being said, I'd consider some kind of stunning attack (subtract four points of damage from a successful attack to force the opponent to make a saving throw; only works on man-sized opponents of fewer levels/HD than the monk).

7. Hit Dice: 6-sided dice seems like a good number. Monks with high constitution (and, thus, bonuses) might represent those guys doing "body hardening" exercises, while a lower CON might be a frail, "elderly master" type.

8. Turn Dead: the province of good clerics. The monk's a little too "inward focus" to have this effect on walking corpses.

9. Spells: I am extremely tempted to turn the monk's special abilities into spells. This makes the most sense, mechanically (think about D6 Star Wars and "force powers"), but would necessitate me (*sigh*) doing yet another spell list. It might be worth it. It would certainly be shorter than, and very different from, the standard cleric list.

10. Magic Items: like the druid, I'd probably restrict monks to "those magic items that can be used by everyone." However, unlike Blackmoor, I would probably not restrict the total number of items possessed, unless I was going to do some sort of "poverty vow" thing. Even so, wouldn't they keep found items in the Order as sort of "communal property?" I'll consider that issue.

11. Cleric Scrolls: even if cleric scrolls exist in Holmes, even if monk abilities end up being "spells," they are NOT going to be the kind of thing that gets written down and read off a scroll. Haven't you seen Kung Fu Panda? The scroll is blank!

12. Monkish Abilities: let's take a quick gander at what we've got (besides things mentioned above). Surprise bonus. Some thief abilities. Speak with animals and plants. Feign death. Resistance to ESP. Self-Healing. Immunity to suggestion/hypnosis. Resistance to telepathy (is this different from ESP?). Immunity to Geas/Quest. Quivering palm (death attack). Saving throw to dodge missiles (even magic missiles). Saves reduce half-damage attacks to zero. Even failing saves only results in half damage starting at 8th level. Uber-fast movement based on level.

Hmmm...that's not all that many, all things considered. Let's take a look at what they get in later books. 1E adds immunity to disease and slow spells. Adds charm to the hypnosis resistance. Grants resistance against mind flayers' mental blast. Immunity to poison. No bonuses to AC for DEX or attacks for STR...but Holmes doesn't grant those anyway.

3E adds slow falling, attacks that hit like enchanted weapons (ki attacks), a dimension door ability (!), spell resistance, eternal youth, the ability to speak with all living creatures (hello, C-3P0!), ethereal travel, and a gradual transformation into an ascended-style supernatural being with damage resistance. Ok.

I've got your ki attack right here, sho nuff.

And, hmm...I don't find a monk in either of 4E's two Player Handbooks.

All in all, not that much, and most of it can be easily cut. I can go with only be surprised on a 1 (like my Holmes ranger). Unarmored characters already double their movement. I might allow the "move silent" thief skill for the cleric changing out their armor for silk robes and slippers, but the other skills?  No.

The mental resistances would warrant no more than a saving throw bonus, and maybe I would couple that with the immunity to disease if the monk had the paladin-like poverty vow (there are benefits of giving away your possessions to the poor, Peace Pilgrim!). All the other saving throw bonuses and missile dodging? No. This isn't Kung Fu. Immunity to poison? Have you seen Crouching Tiger?

The speaking with creatures (and plants) is pretty weird...did Remo Williams do this? It seems there might have been some confusion between Franciscan monks and the Shao Lin variety. This gets axed, along with the feather falling (already took away the climbing sheer surfaces, Remo). All the 3E stuff gets cut...if you want to hit a supernatural creature, get a magic weapon.

Meanwhile, the self-healing, feign death, and (possibly) quivering palm can be rolled into a new meditation skill that has multiple effects, depending on level. But is that enough to make a cleric give up their armor, turning, and spell-casting ability? Because it really doesn't look like there's enough here to warrant that "monk spell list" I was thinking about way back in Item #9.

Maybe I do need some sort of "flurry" or "whirlwind attack;" God help me.

All right, getting all this written out helps my thought process. Comments and suggestions are, of course, welcome.
: )

[this will definitely be my last blog post for today]

Prepping for the Monk

Well, we got the druid knocked out (if you missed it, here's Part 1 and Part 2), which means it's time to move on to that other cleric subclass, the monk.

Hoo-boy.

I have only ever created one monk character (other than a sect of itinerant halfling monks for a short-lived D20 campaign...that's another story). Or maybe two. Hmmm...I know that I had one, for sure, that had the name "Soft Treader" (which makes me wince as I write the words). I also had one for whom I did a number of "character sketches," generally depicting an individual with a cloak and hood that obscured the character's face (like one of those Assassin's Creed dudes), armed with a variety of monk-eligible weapons (crossbows, daggers, quarterstaffs). Were these two characters the same? I honestly can't remember. Neither one was played more than once. Neither became major NPCs in our old AD&D campaign (of the late '80s), which is what often happened with unplayed PCs. Yeah, aside from the wince-worthy name and the illustrations of the other, I really can't any accomplishments of this (either?) character.

And as far as I can recall, I've never ever seen a monk in ANY D&D game before or since. Zero. That's even including a brief stint with 1E Oriental Adventures.

According to wikipedia, the monk class/concept was created by Brian "Buckshot" Blume, inspired by the Destroyer series of novels. Not familiar with those? Have  any of you children of the 80s seen Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins (starring no less than Fred "Timerider" Ward)? Well, that's the movie based on the books, and due to its disappointing receipts at the box-office, it never morphed into the film franchise it was intended to become. ANYway...

The inspiration for the monk.

The monk first appears in Supplement II (Blackmoor) for OD&D which mentions not Brian Blume even one time. Blackmoor states it's written by Dave Arneson ("with special thanks to Gary Gygax, Tim Kask, Rob Kuntz, and Steve Marsh for suggestions and ideas") and so I've simply assumed the subclass was an "Arneson Original" regardless of what Gygax says in his preface to Oriental Adventures (as far as I can tell, Blume never had contact with Arneson, unless they met at GenCon in Wisconsin). On the other hand, I could find no reference of any kind to "monks" in Arneson's First Fantasy Campaign (from Judge's Guild), and the "character list" therein (page 51) includes only the following:

Fighting-Man, Clerical, Magic-User, Ranger, Paladin, Assassin, Merchant, Sage

[and, no, there are no write-ups for "merchants" and "sages"]

The assassin definitely appears to be an Arneson creation; based on its inclusion in Supplement II, the stuff in the FFC, and his well-known love of pulp, I think it was probably inspired by the assassin caste of the Jon Norman Gor books. Of course, assassins are the next subclass of this series...

By 1975 (when Blackmoor was released) there were plenty more besides the Destroyer books to inspire a martial arts monk. Bruce Lee had finished the entirety of his film career (and died) by 1973, kicking off a Hong Kong action craze in the U.S. The popular television show Kung Fu ended its three season run in April of 1975 (combining martial arts and western tropes, I can see Blume being a fan...he did co-design Boot Hill). If the class had been written up during the '80s, it probably would have incorporated multiple ninja elements...mercifully, we missed that.

Originally (and this is different from every subsequent version of the class, with the exception of its "mention" in Holmes), the monk was a subclass of cleric. This is fairly important because, as a subclass, it is presumed the character has the same abilities of a cleric except when contradicted in the text. For example, Supplement II is explicit that the monk has no magical abilities (spell-casting) like a cleric; however, it does not say the monk cannot turn undead if Lawful (there is no alignment restrictions for monks in Blackmoor). It says monks may have no permanent followers and must treat treasure "as does paladins;" it does not say they don't receive divine aid to help construct their "modest stronghold" when the time comes to do so,

It makes sense for clerics to be a subclass of cleric, given their Blackmoor description of "Members of an Order [who] seek both physical and mental superiority in a religious atmosphere." As I wrote the other day, an individual in a pseudo-historic/ancient environment would have spent many years training in their expected profession (rather than attending elementary and secondary school), and the monks training would have been in a religious capacity supplemented by martial arts. At least ones similar to the Shao Lin temple-style monk.

[contrast this with the chivalrous knight ("paladin") whose training is in combat, riding, and warfare and only supplemented by religious tutelage in the churchy virtues]

A class has a focus...a subclass has a divergence from the "usual" training, but retains the focus.

However, beginning with 1st Edition PHB, the monk became its own class.

And I can see the (very sensible) reasoning of doing so. Despite a religious upbringing, the monk has almost nothing in common with the cleric. It wears no armor. Its weapons (at least in Blackmoor) were completely unrestricted. It has no spells. It has no followers. It possesses a variety of unusual powers learned as the character advances upwards. It has a level limit. It has restrictions on advancement beyond a particular level of experience. It uses D4s for hit points for God's sake, while clerics use D6s!

[this last may actually have been a typo, by the way. Supplement II lists the assassin (subclass of thief) using 6-sided dice and the monk (subclass of cleric) using 4-sided dice, whereas the ACTUAL variation (first presented in Supplement I) gave clerics the D6 and thieves the D4. It is conceivable that the editor of Supplement II missed the fact that the thief subclass should share the same HP progress as its parent class, and the cleric subclass share the larger die type. Things were a little "amateur hour" back in those days, as one can tell from reading the original books]

There are so many differences between the parent class and the subclass that it makes sense mechanically to divorce the two from each other, even when there's a thematic connection. Yes, you read that right...it makes sense to keep 'em the same and it makes sense to separate them. Both options make sense based on the mess we have here (thematic parallels with perpendicular mechanics). How to reconcile this?

Probably by throwing one of the two things away. And since Holmes has already designated the monk as a subclass of cleric (and we're doing this exercise in "Holmesian" fashion) I think we're going to need to keep the THEME of the class ("religious order") and chuck the mechanical kitchen sink of thing. In other words: overhaul the hell out of it.

Here comes the "flurry."

Sorry, monk-lovers. I know that in the early days of the hobby it was all about "including what feels fun" and whatnot, but over here we try to hold ourselves to a slightly higher standard. I've got few sacred cows about D&D, and that holds doubly true for a class that's been such a non-entity in thirty years of play. Plus, the monk class as written is brutally stupid (sorry, Brian). A 6th level monk strikes twice/round for D12 damage and (on a roll 5+ over the target number) has a 75% chance of stunning the guy 30-120 minutes and a 25% chance of outright killing 'em? And at maximum level (a lofty 16) the character strikes 4 times per round for 4D10 damage?! That's an average of 88 damage per round (well, presuming the character hits)...what fighter with a magic sword can hope to match that? The PHB nerfs this a little...but not much.

[as a quick example, fighters in the PHB receives their highest attack rate...2 per round...at 13th level, achieved at 1,750,0001xp. An AD&D monk achieves 14th level with the same XP total. At 14th level, the monk has a natural AC of -1, receives three attacks per round, and strikes for 5D4 damage: average of 38 points of damage if they hit with every attack. If the fighter had a halberd and 18/00 strength, they'd still only be looking at an average damage output of 23 points per round (more if the weapon was magical, but certainly not over 30)]

And here's the thing, folks: I like the idea of the monk. Some people might be surprised to hear that, given the general feeling that "Eastern and Western fantasy shouldn't be mixed;" that the martial arts monk is out-of-place in the pseudo-Camelot style D&D campaign. And maybe I was that way, too, once upon a time (I can't remember if I was). However, that was before I was introduced to the Scarlet Brotherhood. Once I got a whiff of that particular concept, I could see half a dozen ways to fit monkish orders into a fantasy campaign...at least one with a pulpy, sword-&-sorcery vibe to it (which is how I like my game).

SO...since this post is getting long (and its my third post of the day; my poor readers! Their eyes are melting!), I'm going to sign off for the moment. Next entry will be reviewing the monk-ish character's abilities line-by-line to see what can stay and what definitely needs to go-go-go.

Is it still cultural appropriation once
 it's already been appropriated?

Clerics of Holmes and their Ilk

Over years of writing this blog, I've written a LOT about clerics. I know it's a lot because I just went back and reread every post marked "cleric" just to look at my thoughts and, boy, that took a while!

I did this review, of course, for a specific purpose: in examining and defining the druid, a subclass of cleric, it's important to understand just what exactly is a cleric. In my early days (years ago) I was mainly examining the class from a B/X perspective, and it was B/X in a vacuum...outside the historic perspective of OD&D supplements and Holmes and various Arneson writings, for instance (I hadn't access to those books at the time). And a lot of my conclusions, musings, and analysis is (I think) still fairly accurate, especially viewed through the lens of B/X. But maybe not from where I'm standing at the moment, knee-deep in Holmes.

Consider, for a moment, my idea of clerics being the (conceptual) equivalent of paladins. If one buys this line of reasoning (and there's really little presented in later books that would refute this assertion), then you really have no reason to create a "paladin" subclass. Of course, the paladin concept is semi-silly anyway, seeing as how it ain't really based on anything. Not saying it's not a neat idea to HAVE a holy warrior type character, but here's one already with the cleric. You just need to give 'em swords. My own B/X Companion did a lot to rectify this (with rules for clerical sword-use and spells to summon celestial mounts, etc.).

But, okay, step away from the B/X for a moment, sir (and keep your hands where I can see 'em). We're talking about Holmes at the moment, and he's got some specific things to say about clerics, and what they are. Specifically:

Clerics -- are humans who who have dedicated themselves to one or more of the gods. Depending on the god, the cleric may be good or evil, lawful or chaotic. Clerics have their own special spells and unlike magic-users they begin with none. They may, however, wear armor, including magic armor, and carry non-edged weapons such as the mace or the quarter staff. No swords or bows or arrows can be employed, for the cleric is forbidden by his religion from the drawing of blood. Good clerics can often dispel undead -- skeletons, zombies, and their ilk as explained later. As they advance in experience levels they gain the use of additional spells. Spells for evil clerics differ slightly from those of good clerics.

Earlier in the description of the wisdom ability score he also notes:

Clerics can perform miraculous spells even though they do not have special intelligence...

Which I personally find amusing as well as flavorful.

Compare his description to the rather limited text of Men and Magic (OD&D), which simply states "Clerics gain some of the advantages from both of the other two classes (Fighting-Men and Magic-Users)..." or especially Gygax's description in the 1E PHB: "This class of character bears a certain resemblance to religious orders of knighthood of medieval times."

Only if you really stretch the definition of "a certain resemblance."

Moldvay's own description is rather closer (being influenced and based on Holmes's book) but is slightly different in wording stating, "Clerics are humans who have dedicated themselves to the service of a god or goddess. They are trained in fighting and casting spells." Can you see the difference there? Moldvay's cleric is very much the "holy warrior," or religious knight. He (or she) has been trained in fighting, as well as clerical magic, and one might infer that the character has taken some sort of oath or vows of service to the god or its representatives on Earth (i.e. the church or temple of organized religion).

This is very different from (in my opinion) the much more priestly version of the cleric that Holmes presents. This isn't a person dedicated to the service of a deity, but to the deity itself (and possibly multiple deities): go build your own temple as commanded by your patron. This isn't a person necessarily trained to fight, but one who is allowed to wear armor and use certain weapons. It's a subtle distinction but (I think) an important one...especially as it applies to other subclasses, like the paladin.

You see, back in "the olden days" (D&D is supposed to be a game with a pseudo-ancient setting, yeah?) folks were a lot more limited from an occupational standing. One didn't simply choose a career after college, nor even "enlist in the army" on their 18th birthday. You didn't, upon reaching adulthood, suddenly decide what you were going to do with your life...by the time you were an adult, that decision had already been made years before. Hell, your career training had been going on for years already. You would have been bundled off to the church as soon as it was found you were useless for anything else on the farm or around the manor (in your early teens, if not younger). Professional soldiers, of course, were trained with weapons and armor and horses from the earliest age possible.

[and if you were going to be a thief, you probably started stealing long before you hit puberty]

The idea of the paladin as a subclass of fighters is one that works with this medieval paradigm. You were probably trained to be a warrior first but, then, having a religious epiphany of some sort, decided to chuck the normal bandit-knight route and dedicate yourself to a more spiritual and chivalrous path. The paladin is a fighting-man (or woman) first, not a person who's spent their life learning the hardcore philosophy of their faith, nor (presumably) communicating directly with some deity.

Meanwhile, the cleric has been doing just that...this is, in fact a far better reason to limit the character's selection of weapons: because it's a lot harder to learn how to use a sword or bow or axe correctly (and in a combat situation) than it is to club someone with a mace. You can have a strong right arm and a stout swing with or without a lot of fancy footwork. Becoming a decent archer or sword-slinger takes practice...practice that steals time from the philosophical studies and life of prayer that is, presumably, the Holmesian cleric's life-path.

Other stuff I've written about the cleric (like why clerics are out looting tombs) still applies, even (or especially) to the Holmes version of the class.

NOW...about those druids.

Considering that druids (per Holmes) are a subclass of clerics (remember, this whole thought experiment is one of looking at Holmes as if it was the final stage of the game's evolution), we need to use the cleric as the starting point and then pick a way for the subclass to diverge from the "standard track." Let's see:

A cleric is a human who is devoted to one or more gods. They've been raised to their religion, gaining magical powers because of their devotion (not because of any "special intelligence").

It would seem to me that, for both subclasses (including the monk), the easiest change here is to change the cleric's devotion to something other than "one or more gods." I realize that this means going down the same road I did with witches and illusionists, but at least we'll be starting with a priestly (clerical) base. SO...something like:

• Druids have chosen to dedicate themselves to the gods' greatest creation...the natural world...instead of to a specific deity or pantheon, and
• Monks have chosen to dedicate themselves to the gods' greatest creation...the human mind-body temple...instead of to a specific deity or pantheon.

OKAY, that works without too much cosmology needing to be set in stone. I'm not sure, but I suspect that my druid subclass is going to look a bit different from the dude in leather armor with scimitar and a tiger buddy. But we'll see.

By the way, I'm going to just go ahead and keep the Celtic "druid" title because, A) is it really cultural appropriation if part of my ancestry is Celtic?, and B) it reminds me of Druid's Glen Golf Course back home. No, I don't golf...but if I did, I'd want to golf someplace called "Druid's Glen."

[my friend's brother was married by a druid a few years back. No animals were involved in the ceremony]

All right...that's enough for now.

Ugh...I miss the Pacific Northwest!

More Goofy Woo-Woo Hocus-Pocus

Or, as my nephew would say: "how I spent my day looking for a voodoo doctor."

Today was (Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday) Day 5 in our week of Serious Intense Pain and decided to seek out an acupuncturist as a desperate attempt to try something, anything that might get me well enough I could at least sleep through the night. After once again driving to Lake City (God help me) and getting help from at least two people that spoke NO English (they had friends on cell phones that could better direct me...my Chinese skills are zero), I finally managed to track down a doctor that was open on a Sunday afternoon. While the experience did leave me with a pair of giant purple welts on my back ("the color should fade in a week or so") from the post-needle "cupping," the volume of my back pain seems to be turned down about six or seven notches...enough that I should (hopefully) manage some shut-eye. I was even able to sit on the couch for an hour or two watching TV without squirming in agony.

On the other hand, I took the beagles for a walk this evening (the first time in several days) and they jerked my arm practically out of my shoulder socket. So crank the pain volume back up a couple points.

Why am I writing all this down (aside for posterity?)? Well, actually, I'm thinking of at least one or two AD&D posts (for a change) that I want to write and I figured I'd warm up to it by blathering on a bit about the Monk character class. Ah, the monk. While others have noted (and sometimes griped) that its inclusion in the AD&D fantasy milieu is a bit...um..."jarring," to say the least, but I've never had much problem with it. Reading Gary Gygax's Gord novels, specifically regarding the Scarlet Brotherhood adversaries goes a long way towards putting monks in the proper "Greyhawkian Perspective" for me...and anyway, what's wrong with having SOME type of Zen-like martial artist in a fantasy world? Even without a "mystic Orient" (c.f. Oriental Adventures, Kara-Tur, etc.) who's to say that SOME group of people wouldn't have gotten together and meditated on the proper way to use one's own body as a weapon.

The powers of the human body ARE amazing after all, and demonstrably harness-able by those with both the proper talent and discipline; why not include a class that addresses it?

After all, nothing says your D&D campaign HAS to be set in a pseudo-European-Earthlike environment, right? It is perhaps our western civ conceit that we presume that's how the game should be played, despite the DMG listing a number of different NPC governments that can be used besides feudal monarchies. Of course, it's what we (and by we I mean North Americans) know, and the first thing we think about when we hear, oh say, "dragons" or "wizards." The East has long had their own legends and folklore with dragons and wizards (and fighters and thieves and demons and familiars and castles and swords, etc.).

Personally, all my old AD&D campaigns were in completely fabricated, non-Earth, non-European worlds...despite the occasional appearance of dwarves and elves (and admittedly, our games were almost entirely human-o-centric also, just based on the whole "level limit" thing).

So problems with monks? No.

HOWEVER, after all the kung fu action films I've watched over the years, I am completely surprised by the monk's inability to heal other people. Where are the acupuncture needles he should be carrying around? Haven't you seen Iron Monkey? Or Crouching Tiger? Or Kiss of the Dragon? All those dudes can use their knowledge of pressure points and the human body for HEALING, not just laying the bare-handed beat-down. Now THAT'S something that could have been added to the ol' Players Handbook.

; )

Okay...going to bed now. Wish me luck!