The Rundown

I am writing this Thursday morning, though I don't intend it to post up till Sunday. The holidays have caught up to me and my time over the next week or so will be fairly occupied.  Yes, I'll be checking emails, responding to comments, etc. but I doubt I'm going to get much posted before the New Year, unless it's a "happy Christmas" missive or something.

In deep diving the Unearthed Arcana these last several weeks (has it only been since Thanksgiving? My how time flies...) I've found that it isn't all bad. True, it is mostly bad, but that's still better than I expected to find. It's interesting to wonder if my pained memories of UA's indulgences (so awful in implementation 'back in the day') may have been part of what prevented me from taking up the torch of 1E far sooner than I have...that those indiscretions of my youth may have left a bad taste in my mouth putting me off the AD&D game and leading me down the road of B/X play, obstinately turning up my nose at the better game for years. If so...how sad. It's certainly true that my enthusiasm and fire for 1st edition was stoked immensely with the realization that I could simply play the game with the original (three) core books, that I need not adapt the entirety of the line.

Well, whatever...water under the bridge. I am immensely enjoying my game as is, and...

[pause, as I take my first sips of coffee in some nine days. Apologies: I got back from Mexico on the 8th, fully addicted to caffeine and had to (once again) go through the rigamarole of breaking my dependency. This involved quite a bit of excruciating withdrawal symptoms as well as a seven day juice fast...I just started eating again yesterday, but this my first morning with a freshly brewed pot of decaf. Mmmm...]

*ahem* As I was saying, my game is immensely satisfying the way it is now, but with my new broad-minded attitude, I think it no great crime to add the good from the UA to my campaign.  Keeping in mind that I have yet to examine...let alone curate...the spell lists and magic items; here is the current list of items from the Unearthed Arcana that I will henceforth be including (presented in the order in which they appear):

• (page 8) Non-human characters who choose to single-class in a class that they could normally be multi-classed have their maximum level limits raised by +2.
• (page 13) Armor permitted updated as per the table. New weapons, where added, as per the table. Old weapons (thieves using short bows?): NO. New weapons that are not a part of the campaign (staff slings and hand crossbows, for example) are ignored. Yes, assassins can use a shield and still perform an assassination attempt. Likewise, if a character wishes to pick up and keep a weapon they can't use, I'm generally okay with it.
• (page 14) No cavaliers. However, see my new Bogatyr class which WILL be part of the campaign. They are generally only found east of the Cascades.
• (page 17) I don't mind there being a 15th level Grand Druid (good luck getting to three million experience points!). My own campaign setting has a 14th level Great Druid, but I'm sure he/she is beholden to a higher power...there's always someone bigger. No hierophants as of yet (and maybe never).
• (page 18) Barbarians are being added, as much a "sub-race" of humans as a "sub class" of fighters. The class is largely unchanged from how it appears, save that there are no attribute requirements for entry. In my campaign, there aren't many "barbarian tribes;" you'll find them in the frozen lands to the north (British Columbia), in some of the deeper jungles to the south (Oregon), and in the mountains of the Idaho Deathlands (to the east)...basically, the farther away you get from "civilization" (Washington State) the more barbaric the humans you'll find. 0-level human types the barbarian replaces in the MM (cavemen, dervishes, nomads, and tribesman, etc.) remain 0-level, d6 hit point type creatures. NOTE: a barbarian may only receive x.p. from a "sold" magic item if it is an item they could normally use (as per the table on page 20). Otherwise, the barbarian receives NO SHARE in the x.p. gained by the party (though they may give the barbarian a cut of the money received).
• (page 22) Ranger's "giant class" opponents updated as listed. No other changes to the ranger from its appearance in the PHB.
• (page 22) Thief ability armor adjustments for wearing armor other than leather now added.
• (page 23) Thief-Acrobats now added, as written.
• (page 26) Field plate (as per the DMG) remains a part of the game, but is not available for purchase in every one-horse town. All new weapons added, with the EXCEPT for the hand crossbow and staff sling (both are Drow weapons, first appearing in the D-series of modules; perhaps they are available for purchase/learning in the Underdark). I see no reason to include the buckler...isn't that just a "small wood shield?"...but the spiked buckler is okay.
• (page 27) New weapons get their bonuses. As there is no "full plate" armor, only AC adjustments to 1 are considered. Full plate may be added in the future as "jousting plate" or "tournament plate" but it will be bulky armor and have a movement rate of 6". "Field plate" is the fitted plate armor that is worn on the battlefield for real combat.
• (pages 28-31) All spells will need to be reviewed before being implemented. When choosing spells to cast, players are restricted to spells found in the PHB. All UA spells will require spell research to acquire, though they may be found on spell scrolls or in certain grimoires (see S4: The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth). No cantrips.
• (page 72) "Appendix VI" of the WotC re-print. As stated, armor penalties are implemented as listed. Thieves and their subclasses may NOT perform "thief skills" when wearing armor heavier than studded or elfin chain. Bards wearing magical chainmail are penalized as if wearing elfin chain. All multi-class options are ignored in favor of the (standard) PHB lists.
• (page 75) Armor and encumbrance for new armors as per table. Field plate provides no bonus other than a high armor class (if "jousting plate" is permitted, the same will hold true)...no "damage absorption."
• (page 77-78) New weapons as described with the exceptions already listed.
• (page 79) I am still deciding how to use/implement spell books in my campaign.
• (page 80) Illusionists acquire spells as per the DMG; there is no read illusionist magic in my game and no such spell is required to read illusionist spells/scrolls. There are no cantrips.
• (page 80) Cost of magic-user/illusionist spell casting: these rates are a little low (in my opinion), but they form a good starting basis for negotiation.
• (page 82) Combat penalties in darkness are adopted. Ignore all references to faerie fire (spell is used as per the PHB). 
• (page 84-106) New magic items will be reviewed as needed, although magical field plate, full plate, and elfin chain should all be cut from the lists...sorry!

I have not yet reviewed the appendices. My base impulse is to ignore Appendix Q: Weaponless Combat (I'm happy with the DMG, thank you very much), but Appendix R: Non-Lethal Combat looks interesting. I do not allow demi-human clerics as PCs, nor do I care much about their gods, so Roger Moore's Appendix S: Non-Human Deities is absolutely worthless to me...it's just crap filler. Appendix T: Pole Arm Nomenclature (from Dragon Magazine #22!) is helpful but provides no actual game mechanics.

Aaaaand...that's all she wrote. Happy holidays, folks!

The Bogatyr (AD&D Class)

What follows is a re-working of the Cavalier class, as well as my first attempt at "writing a class" for 1st edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. The class is somewhat specific to my own campaign setting, but should be adaptable to others. This class has NOT been playtested...yet.

Across the vast, undulating hills of the Inland Empire rides a lone figure; his armor, weathered but resolute, gleams beneath the endless skies of the Palouse. With unmatched fortitude, he roams this golden, open expanse, a defender of both its silent beauty and its humble people. His spirit is shaped by the land, being capable of enduring the harshest of storms and the fiercest of foes. He is a bogatyr, a "hero-knight," champion of the downtrodden, embodying courage and selflessness in a land as vast as his heart.

Like the thief-acrobat, the bogatyr is a "split-class;" many young fighters aspire to join the ranks of these hero knights, but few will ultimately win their spurs. To become a bogatyr, a character must earn 19,000 x.p. while advancing as a normal fighter. Entry to the class requires a minimum strength of 13, a minimum dexterity of 14, a minimum constitution of 15, and minimum scores of 10 in both intelligence and wisdom. In addition, the character must be proficient in the lance, the sword (either broad, long, or scimitar), and one horseman's weapon (the mace, flail, or military pick). In campaigns that use alignment, only good aligned characters can become a bogatyr.

While most bogatyri are human, both elves and half-elves can become bogatyr; however, non-humans have the same level limits as if they were members of the regular fighter class. A bogatyr with strength, intelligence, and wisdom exceeding 15 adds a 10% bonus to all earned experience points. The bogatyr is a subclass of fighter and uses the same combat, saving throw, and multiple attack tables, except as noted. They may use flaming oil, but never use poison.

Upon becoming a bogatyr, the speed at which the character learns new weapon proficiencies slows, as the bogatyr focuses on their "favored weapons" and horseman skills. As such, they only learn a new weapon every four levels of experience (so at 8th, 12th, 16th, etc.). 

Each bogatyr has three favored weapons: the lance, one type of sword (chosen from long, broad, and scimitar), and one type of horseman's weapon (chosen from mace, flail, and military pick). The bogatyr receives a +1 bonus to attack with any of these favored weapons, and this bonus increases as the character advances in level: +2 with the lance at 7th, +2 with the sword at 9th, +2 with the horseman weapon at 11th, +3 with the lance at 13th, +3 with the sword at 15th, and +3 with the horseman weapon at 17th. The maximum bonus for any of the bogatyr's favored weapons is +3.

Mounted combat is the special province of the bogatyr and the character adds their level to damage inflicted by a lance when mounted (on foot, a bogatyr may use a heavy lance as an awl pike, or a light/medium lance as a spear; however, the character does not receive their damage bonus when dismounted). Regardless of the weapon being wielded, all bogatyri gain an additional +1 to their attack rolls when mounted.

Bogatyri are defenders of the weak and are experts at parrying; should a bogatyr choose to parry instead of attack they may subtract all "to hit" bonuses (including those from strength, magic, and "favored weapon") from an opponent's attack roll. The bogatyr may parry a number of opponents equal to their number of attacks for the round with the weapon they're using. 

Bogatyri are all but bred to the saddle, and are unlikely to be thrown from the saddle (85% chance to maintain their seat +1% per level after 5th). They have the same chance to avoid damage should they or their mount fall.

A bogatyr may vault into the saddle, even when wearing bulky armor, and have their steed underway in a single segment. The bogatyr can urge their mount to greater speed (add +2" to movement rate), and this pace can be sustained for up to 6 turns with no ill effects on the mount. A bogatyr's knowledge of horseflesh is such they they can determine the animal's value (and estimated hit points) with but a cursory examination; any steed selected and cared for as a personal mount by the bogatyr will have +2 hit points per hit die, up to the beast's normal maximum. At 7th level a bogatyr may handle and ride a pegasus as a steed, at 9th level they may handle and ride a hippogriff, and at 11th level they may handle and ride a griffon or similar creature (DM's discretion).

The legends of bogatyr courage range far and wide, and bogatyri are immune to fear, magical or otherwise. What's more, they project a protection from fear aura that extends to all allies within a 1" radius of the bogatyr. Bogatyri are especially strong-minded and receive a +2 bonus to saving throws versus any mind-affecting magic (charm, hold, hypnosis, possession, mind blast, etc.) and a +2 bonus versus all forms of illusion magic. The spirit of a bogatyr is nigh indomitable; if reduced to zero or negative hit points, they can continue to function (although they cannot make attacks); however, taking actions other then resting and binding wounds causes them to lose 1 hit point per round. When the bogatyr reaches a negative hit point value equal to 10 plus their hit point bonus from constitution, they perish.

All bogatyri follow a code of chivalrous conduct requiring them to be fearless in battle, steadfast in their defense of the weak, pious in their faith, and loyal to their allies. A bogatyr who waivers from these ideals, or whose alignment changes to non-good,  remains a bogatyr but ceases to advance (i.e. cannot earn levels). In addition they lose their immunity to fear, protection from fear aura, saving throw bonuses, and ability to function at zero and negative hit points. To regain their full bogatyr capabilities requires an atonement spell as well as a heroic quest to regain their honor...assuming, of course, they've already returned to a good alignment.

As a bogatyr's name and fame grow and spread, they will attract young (1st level) fighters wanting to learn from the bogatyr. One such fighter seeking training appears upon achieving 6th level; thereafter, 0-2 (roll 1d3-1) new fighters will join the bogatyr's train with every level earned. The number of such followers may not exceed the retainer limit set by the bogatyr's charisma score. These fighters need to be fed, cared for, and outfitted (with arms and steed) but otherwise have no expectation of payment from their master. Not all of these will become bogatyri (some may not meet the necessary requirements), and they may be dismissed at any time by the character. Followers that fall in battle or are dismissed may only be replaced by earning additional levels of experience. 

Experience Points        Exp. Level        10-Sided Dice        Level Title

19,001-38,000                        5                        5                     Knight Errant

38,001-77,000                        6                        6                     Knight Bachelor

77,001-140,000                      7                        7                     Knight

140,001-220,000                    8                        8                     Grand Knight

220,001-300,000                    9                        9                     Banneret

300,001-600,000                   10                      10                    Bogatyr

600,001-900,000                   11                    10+3                  Bogatyr, 11th level

1,200,001-1,500,000             12                    10+6                  Bogatyr, 12th level

300,000 experience points per level required for each level after 12th. A bogatyr of 13th level and above is sometime called a "Hero-Knight Commander." Bogatyri gain 3 hit points per level after the 10th, and bonuses from constitution no longer apply.

Three Bogatyri

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."

Supplemental Material

Started work on a new OD&D supplement this morning (my personal "Book IV"), mainly because I wanted to capture the new illusionist material. My intention, once completed, is to have a working "campaign Bible" to supplement (ah! That's the word!) my edited version of OD&D. At this point, it is perhaps putting the cart before the horse, considering I haven't yet set down one word of Book II.

[there are a couple reasons for this "hole" in The Work. First off, I haven't really needed the book yet: I own two copies of Book II anyway, and many creatures in my adventures to date have been hand-designed or else adapted from other sources. But mainly, I'm really considering an entire overhaul of Book II's structure, organization, and contents...and I'm still considering the exact paradigm I want to use. Is this supposed to be a book for me? Or a book for anyone? Or a book for players and DMs who want to use my campaign setting? Or what? I *do* eventually want some "bestiary" type book, but I'm not yet sure exactly what it will contain...perhaps every entry will have an "ecology" section while the tables have the necessary short-hand combat info for inclusion in adventure write-ups]

[oh, yeah...I also want to completely overhaul or do away with the treasure tables as designed. I do make use of them - somewhat - for identifying how much treasure a monster tends to have in its lair, but then I tailor each encounter's hoard individually to suit my needs. And while I have been using the included magic items as "templates" and inspiration, I am striving to make each one unique and special, and none of them are being generated via random roll. Figuring out how to rewrite THAT section is a bit of a bear, and I might not even do so, instead simply throwing some hasty notes into an appendix of Book III]

Why throw a PC class like the Illusionist into a supplement? Because I'm not yet ready for the class to be "open" to players (some things shall be "revealed" in time). For a similar reason, gnomes (as I conceive them) will not be added into Book I but, rather, left for the "supplement;" they are my own strange species (call them "svirfneblin lite"). Besides, I can't be adding a race with an illusionist option before I've introduced the illusionist, can I?

The new supplement should also include the Thief class, once I've overhauled the damn thing. Despite his Gord the Rogue writings, I'm starting to get the impression that Gygax disliked the thief concept, and I'm starting to feel the same. However, I continue to feel a lot of love for the assassin as a concept, and a thief baseline is thus a necessary evil. Starting player characters at 3rd level mercifully solves the issue of new assassins having no thief skills, and the idea currently bumping about my noggin is that of assassins as a sort of "prestige class;" that is, there aren't any 1st or 2nd level assassins (at least, not as player characters). Non-human thieves are NOT going to be the "go to" class (caused, I'm sure, by the unrestricted leveling); instead, any such character is going to be some sort of outcast from their society, probably restricted from training or progression in ANY other class.

[might make an exception for half-elves with a wisdom under 13; i.e. half-elves who are unable to progress as clerics. To me, half-elves are the true "jack-of-all-trades" character]

Of course, that would do away with my favorite multi-class combo: the gnome illusionist/assassin. But since gnomes, illusionists, and assassins are all going to be part of the supplemental material, maybe they'll get some sort of exception, too. Or maybe not...phantasmal killer is fine and dandy for any illusionist styling herself an "assassin."

[as is using a phantasmal image to conceal a booby trap, pit, or hidden assailant]

Bards will probably be a similar story (i.e. unavailable except as a single, restricted class). But then why would anyone choose to be a thief if you could get all the abilities - albeit at reduced level - plus magical abilities, bardic charming, an increased (d6) hit dice?

Why indeed.

I am, of course, looking at bards as originally presented by Doug Schwegman in The Strategic Review (volume 2, issue 1). This particular bard had none of the multi-classing madness (even though it would have functioned better and more sensibly in OD&D...). Schwegman's bard is also available to elves, dwarves, and hobbits, unlike the version Gygax gives us in the PHB. While half-elves are not mentioned, I would guess that this is a case of the class being submitted to TSR before the publication of Greyhawk (or before it was read by Schwegman), just as happened with Aronson's illusionist class (requiring his later update in The Dragon #1). Schwegman's class is a bit over-powered...attacks and saves as a cleric, magic-user spells up to 7th level (hmmm...guess he did read Greyhawk), bardic charm and legend lore, double languages, chain armor, and d6 hit dice, plus unrestricted weapon use. Sheesh.

[can you imagine a teleporting bard with the ability to cast delayed blast fireball?]

I see why A) Gygax threw the class into an appendix as an optional class, and B) attempted an update to make the thing playable within the spirit of the original, while preserving some semblance of "balance" (OR, alternatively, making the class as hard to play as possible in order to dissuade its use). I haven't yet got around to my (planned) post on the AD&D bard, but...well, now I've got this OD&D trainwreck to deal with.

[one might ask why bother? Multiple reasons, not the least of which my soft spot for the class after spending the majority of my AD&D career playing bards. Recently, I've been reading the old MZB Lythande stories...part of my research on Thieves World, one of the major inspirations for my campaign setting...and I am considering how such a character might best be modeled in the game. "Bard" would be a fair choice...]

As for other stuff that will be in the Supplement: info on the campaign world, including its geography, cosmology, history, etc. The various deities, the PC races (how and why they interact with each other), major political entities, etc. Probably The Haggard Goat (the tavern/inn that is the PCs' base of operations) and its proprietor, Meredith. Assuming she survives the players' antics.

Yes, there will be rangers as a playable class...but again, they have not yet been introduced to the campaign (they are outside the city my players are currently exploring). Half-orcs...no. This isn't Tolkien. And even in Tolkien, "half-orcs" appear (to my reading) to have been very much a product of magical cross-breeding (a la Saruman), NOT the biological offspring of two distinct species. My orcs are not the "fecund race" of 1st edition. I'm not yet quite sure WHAT they are (my players haven't encountered any); once I figure that out, I'll consider blogging about it. Maybe.

[probably some sort of magically created slave race, engineered in the misty past by decadent, sorcerous elves. Would explain why elves speak their language, as well as the animosity between the two species. In fact, done. That's the short answer to the "orc question"]

Monks? Ummmmmm...haven't decided. Need to run some mock combats between monks of various levels with a variety of opponent types. That's a loooong way off, at this point. Assassins first.

Druids? Yeah, maybe, probably. This isn't really a foresty setting (as currently conceived). Mostly sand and scrub and swamp and sea...the four S's of environments (also snow and subterranean...six S's, I guess). My original intention was to include them as a character class (the "neutral cleric" option), but I kind of like the neutral clerics I've already added to the game. Nothing in OD&D prevents a player from playing a "neutral" cleric; they're simply limited to 6th level of experience (i.e. no 5th level spells). This has allowed me to add multiple "minor (i.e. neutral) deities" to my world along with perfectly competent clerics that have no ability to raise dead, commune, or create food (they still have the potential to turn any of the undead types). Adding the druid diminishes the impact and utility of such characters...why go to a lesser cleric when one can find a druid? Mainly, however, it's more of a setting/environment thing. I'm not sure yet how many bears and beasts are going to be in the setting. Still developing.

Anyway. Huh. I sat down to blog about elves this morning and I got completely distracted with my own thoughts and ideas. And I didn't even talk much about the campaign, just thoughts on what's going into the supplemental material. *sigh*

Apologies folks. More later.

Class Proliferation

Just continuing from where we left off...

First off, let me say that, aside from the reasons I noted in my previous post, there's no special reason you need to have a "class system" in your role-playing game. Traveller doesn't need a class system. Neither does Pendragon or original Gamma World. There are some systems like Vampire the Masquerade that actually confuse their own design purposes by including a class system (see "clan"), though VtM does demonstrate yet another reason class systems are expedient: they limit what might otherwise be a baffling number of choices/options to a manageable number.

[I hear some folks might saying, HEY! Gamma World has classes: humanoids, mutant animals, and pure strain humans! To be clear, original GW only offers two choices: a PC with mutations or a PC without. If you choose the latter, you get some bennies when it comes to interacting with ancient technology. I don't see a "class" distinction when there's no real, mechanical difference between choices]

I'm not a stupid man (usually), but I just don't have the patience to wade through some of the character creation systems out there. I've played FATE games on multiple occasions (at conventions) and had a good time using "lite" streamlined chargen (once) or pregen characters. I own a couple-three FATE games. But I haven't run them...haven't even finished reading the rules. My eyes just start to glaze over when I start skimming the aspects and stunts and skill lists (skills! why are there always skills!). I have a much easier time managing a "light" class-less system (say Over The Edge) than something so robust...I don't want to "build" a game with a toolbox, I want to PLAY.

It may simply be that Dungeons & Dragons spoiled me a long time ago. The expedience of its class system with its distinct, recognizable archetypes just proves to be such a useful working template for fantasy adventure games that it's hard to get away from it...whenever I pick up an RPG that has  "quick-start" characters or archetypes (like Hollow Earth Expedition or Shadowrun or Deadlands), I always find myself asking 'Why didn't they just make this a class-based system? Wouldn't that have been easier?'

However, it's not always wine and roses in the world of classes. Class proliferation, the expansion of the choice list to fill an ever greater number of niche interests, can eventually lead to wrecking the joint...especially in games where the classes cease to be recognizable and/or the distinctions get muddied or outright buried. Palladium's RIFTS is probably "Exhibit A" for class proliferation leading to a loss of expedience due to proliferation: the original core book contains 28 distinct classes (or more if you count each "dragon RCC" separately) and each supplemental "World" or "Dimension"  sourcebook (more than 50 of which exist) add another half-dozen...or more!...new classes to the mix, many of which are no more than slight variations of others. Do you really need to include six variations of the juicer? For that matter, do you really need juicers and crazies and borgs? Aren't they all just enhanced/altered fighters with different downsides?

In the world of Dungeons & Dragons, class proliferation isn't nearly as extreme, but it IS present, and has been for decades. The original Little Brown Books had only three classes in 1974, increasing to five with the release of Greyhawk (1975), seven with Blackmoor (later in 1975), and nine (including the psionic variation which "drained" existing class abilities in exchange for psionic ones) with Eldritch Wizardry in 1976. That's nine classes if you're not counting each multi-class or race-class combo separately. By 1978 the AD&D Players Handbook had eleven classes available to players, with a character's race providing only slight variation (though many-many multi-class options).

While this was only officially increased to fourteen with the advent of Unearthed Arcana in 1985, the time between 1978 and 1985 saw the appearance of a number of classes in Dragon magazine, many of which were used in peoples' home campaigns (we used at least two or three, and I'm sure we would have included anti-paladins, if we'd had that copy of Dragon).

So how many classes do you really need? How many classes are "too many?"

It's pretty clear that most folks feel you need more than three (unless the capabilities of those three are so minimal in distinction that a race variation can make one feel "heavily modified;" see OD&D). But is 4th edition's 22 (spread across three PHBs), each possessing four "paragon" options (4E's equivalent of "prestige classes") that become accessible at 11th level, too many? I would certainly say, "yes," but it's possible I'm in the minority.

Classes (and class-race combos) are certainly something that can be tailored for each individual's campaign; in fact, in some games (like Rifts) I'm not sure a campaign can really function without a strong editing hand. But what a particular gaming group can stand with regard to class quantity is up for debate.

Back in D&D's "primordial ooze" days, new classes (and class options) were added in dribs and drabs until a saturation point was reached round about 1979. My evidence for this? The very unscientific fact that TSR was happy to stand pat with its "official" class list till 1985. While I realize that other things were keeping the company's main designers busy (lawsuits and finding new ways to spend their wealth), I have to think that if there'd been a real clamoring for new classes, the company would have found some way to put out a new or updated or modified PHB; heck, just a "revised edition" that included a handful of extra pages.

[by the way, this falls into the "more evidence" drawer when it comes to my idea that subsequent editions are written MAINLY for returning, experienced players. Once you've added a bunch of classes over time, veteran players come to a new edition with an EXPECTATION of being able to play with their favorite shiny bauble. It's why there's so little "pruning" that occurs between editions, despite the fact that a dozen plus classes is probably excessive for a new player]

So what, JB? Having classes is fun! Having more classes just means more options which means more fun! You just said that groups are going to vary in opinion over "how many is too many."

That's right; I did say that. I said that limits are going to vary depending on groups...but there reaches a point, with ALL campaigns, when the proliferation of classes is going to be too many. When the number of class options is so many that game play is no longer expedited. That number may vary from table to table, but each table has a number. And I think that knowing that number...or, rather, finding that number...can be useful.

I've delved into this a little bit in the past when I was reminiscing over the gaming group of my youth. While it lasted only seven or eight years, it represented a substantial investment of time (in hours spent) back before my friends and I had much in the way of responsibilities or distractions. I would estimate that we spent at least three times as much time on Dungeons & Dragons as on ANY year I've spent regularly playing as an adult, the equivalent of a 20+ year (adult) campaign. Which is about right for the power level we were often playing at.

[to be clear, we ran...roughly...three full campaigns during this time period, taking characters from 1st level up to (what would be) a retirement-worthy high level]

Most of this was played with 1st edition AD&D; our group disbanded shortly before 2nd edition was released. Including the Unearthed Arcana (we never used Oriental Adventures), here's our breakdown of classes:

Cavalier (subclass: Paladin): never used. Never ever ever. It wasn't that they weren't cool, or that we couldn't roll up characters with high enough ability scores. No one wanted to be strait-jacketed by their codes and alignment restrictions. Plus, what good is a horse in a dungeon?

Cleric (subclass: Druid): we saw several clerics over the years, though the first PC cleric did not appear until we picked up the Expert set (circa 1982) and the followers that came with high levels outweighed the lack of "oomph" at low levels. My friend Matt's longest running PC was a cleric of Athena. A visiting player brought his high level cleric to one of our game sessions (another cleric of Athena? Maybe). There were also two Drow clerics of Lloth at later points (one male, one female, both played by different players at different times); one of these (female) was multi-classed. We never had a PC druid (I rolled one up, a female half-elf with the oh-so-original name "Galadriel;" she never saw play time). One half-elf "converted" (mechanically and religiously) to a cleric of Artemis. There was also one "healer" PC, based on the NPC class published in Dragon magazine; "Fr. Cornelius" was Chaotic Evil and insane and lasted all of one session before being castrated and left for dead by his fellow party members.

Fighter (subclass: Ranger, Barbarian): my co-DM (Jocelyn) 's second oldest PC was a straight B/X fighter, and probably the most badass character to ever roam our campaign; she deserves her own post. My brother played a dwarf fighter/thief; another player (Crystal) played a 6'3" female human fighter fighter who sported about 50 weapons including a man-catcher ("to catch me a man") and exceptional (%) strength. My brother played a barbarian also ("Bork") who was killed at least once in an intra-party feud. There were a couple 1E bards who started in the ranger class (one was mine) but we never had any dedicated rangers. One of the earliest character sheets I still have stashed is a level one elf (B/X) named "Silver Fox;" no idea whose it was. Jocelyn's oldest character was a 1st level (B/X) halfling that I gave her when she randomly showed up to the first adventure I ever ran and needed a character...it is the only "halfling fighter" I remember anyone ever playing back in the day. Matt also ran a half-elf "archer," though I can't remember if this was taken from Bard Games' The Compleat Adventurer, a Dragon magazine, or was some kit-bashed combination.

Magic-User (subclass: Illusionist): quite a few of these, though most were played by one guy (Scott); his longest running PC was a straight MU named "Lucky Drake" (later "Lucius Draco"). He also ran an illusionist (who adventured through D1: Descent to the Depths of the Earth), and a (male) Drow magic-user/assassin with house-ruled pyrokinetic (psionic) ability. Also seen: a half-elven fighter/magic-user and a female (wild?) elven magic-user with red hair and a penchant for fire/arson. Now that I think of it, fire and arson were fairly common proclivities of magic-users in our games. Not Lucky, though...he was a strict lightning bolt type of mage.

Thief (subclass: Acrobat, Assassin): quite a few of ALL of these. Jason's longest running PC was a thief, grandfathered into AD&D from B/X. Matt had an assassin. Scott had the aforementioned magic-user/assassin. After the UA's release, most thieves (at least three, maybe four) chose to become thief-acrobats upon reaching 6th level (two bards did). In one campaign, my bard took assassin as his second class (instead of thief...no, this was not the guy who started as a ranger). My brother's halfling thief-acrobat was the kind of douchebag only an annoying younger brother can run. A couple of (prominent) halfling thief henchmen/NPCs. Scott ran a female half-elf thief who was brutalized and killed by a tribe of bullywugs (I1: Dwellers of the Forbidden City) in what may have been the lowest point of our many year campaign...a campaign that had MANY low points (see Matt's healer character above).

Monk: I created a monk character with the name "Soft Treader" (because I suck, okay?) who wore a cape with a hood that looked a bit like Moon Knight (not really an inspiration) and, as far as I remember never used his hand-to-hand attacks; had a crossbow and "jo sticks" instead and made it to about 2nd level before being abandoned (or killed...I honestly don't remember). Pretty sure he was Lawful Neutral, which didn't fit in all that great with the (usually Chaotic) party we were running.

Bard: three of these, though one (mine) really had three iterations across the years: first as a fighter-thief-bard, then as a ranger-acrobat-bard, and finally as a fighter-assassin-bard. The other two were both female; one (another half-elf ranger-acrobat) was a prominent NPC. The other was a crazy-ass mix of storm giant/human/elf that (I think) was of the "standard" fighter-thief variety...albeit one with a bunch of crazy air elemental type powers (this was NOT my character; another long post).

A few years after this group disbanded, I did have the opportunity to run a short (maybe three month?) AD&D campaign for my brother and some friends. They were in high school at the time and were tired of me maiming their PCs with Chaosium game systems (ElfQuest, Stormbringer, etc.). The group consisted of a fighter, a couple clerics, and an evil magic-user or two. Oh, and another (1E) bard who was sacrificed pretty early on in order to power The Machine of Lum the Mad. Since that time, I've really only run/played BECMI or B/X...at least as far as anything resembling a "campaign."

So what's the breakdown? How many different classes are we talking? Well, that's really only about EIGHT classes, plus multi-class combos and racial variation. I mean, the monk? I can hardly call a class played in one or two sessions by a single player (probably one just "trying out" the new rules) as really viable class. Other than the thief, most single-class characters were a "main" class: fighter, cleric, or magic-user. Subclasses were something to be shoehorned into a multi-class character (or bard) or left for NPCs. The thief subclasses were the exception for us, and I'd guess this was due mostly to them all being "thief PLUS" type classes: they had all the abilities of a thief, plus extra abilities. And UN-like other subclasses (paladins, rangers, barbarians, etc.) there were no behavioral restrictions mandated by their class. Any rule that restricted us with regard to who we could loot and what we could carry (treasure-wise) was enough to render classes undesirable and untouchable.

Getting crowded in here...

If we had played without behavior restrictions, would we have made use of more classes? Possibly. Certainly the cavalier's "boost ability score over time" looks like the kind of tasty exploit we would have lapped up. But it's hard to say: the original four B/X classes (fighter, magic-user, cleric, and thief) were so straightforward in how they worked. A class like illusionist seemed pretty easy to add, because it was (mainly) just about swapping out the spell list. And you can do a LOT with four classes, a handful of races, and an ability to combine the two (or more) elements.

Which, unfortunately, doesn't really answer my question.

I just want to add a couple-three more thoughts (as I wrap up an already-too-long post): one is that my remembering of my old campaigns' classes is probably not accounting how much of our enthusiasm or affinity for a particular class was due to level restrictions. No one played dwarves (for example) because they max level was capped in all but the thief class (and who wanted to play a dwarf thief? He can't even climb walls!). This was a major consideration for us "back in the day."

Secondly, regarding 3rd edition (and 3.5 and, by extension, Pathfinder): I've played this brand of D&D and despite it only having only 11 "core classes" (we won't count the later "Complete" line of 3.5 that added at least 12 additional "core classes" to the mix), it was TOO MANY for my taste, simply because of the lack of restriction in combination. I suppose there's nothing "wrong" with a gnome or half-orc ranger...in some ways, that's a nice option to have, an example of "outside-the-box" thinking, casting against type, etc. But there IS something about allowing (for example) ANY race to become a paladin, or a monk, or whatever that makes a class that once felt special and privileged to be "less special." And the open-ended multi-classing? That defeats the whole purpose (and advantages) of having a class-based system; instead you're doing a class-less system, just not one as robust as other "point-buy" RPGs (like GURPS).

In the original AD&D PHB, there were a total of 56 race-class combinations available to player characters (58 in games that allowed the human and half-elf bard options). 22 of these were specific, demihuman multi-classes, almost all of which were composed of primary classes (not subclasses). 50 is probably more than one will see in a long-running game (mine used less than half this number, and we enjoyed trying out new things and tinkering)...but I can see wanting to have 150% to 200% more available than what one would expect to find over the life of a campaign. For me, based on my past experience, 40 would feel like a pretty safe maximum.

Besides, I could always add more if some player really REALLY wanted to have something unusual (a half-giant pyrokinetic archer, for example).
; )

Holmesian Subclass and Race Index

Sorry...nearly forgot about this. Just for ease of reference here are the links I promised for the whole slew:

Cleric Subclasses
- Druid (and Spells)
- Monk

Fighter Subclasses
- Paladin
- Ranger

Magic-User Subclasses
- Illusionist (and Spells)
- Witch

Thief Subclasses
- Assassin
- Bard

New Race Hybrids
- Half-Elf
- Half-Orc

A very fun exercise for Yours Truly. I'll be interested in seeing how they compare to the versions in Blueholme Compleat, once Mr. Thomas finally gets the book published (I'm making an assumption about what I'll find in BC...I didn't actually have the opportunity to peruse Michael's play test documents). Regardless, these will serve my purposes.
: )

Holmes Rules: The Bard

Bards -- some thieves of a less larcenous bent have found the life of a traveling minstrel more to their taste; the coin still spends (and is less dangerous to come by), and the open road satisfies their wanderlust. A thief must have a score of 9 or better in both charisma and intelligence to become a bard.

Bards can wear chain in addition to leather armor and unlike other thieves they roll 6-sided dice for hit points. Bards do not have the same skills as a normal thief, and gain no advantage for attacking from behind; however, they do have the same ability to read languages and magic scrolls as a thief (upon reaching 4th level). Their main talent is their music, and any creature that hears a bard's music has a chance of being mesmerized as indicated by the charm percentage on the table below. A successful roll indicates creatures must stand rapt, doing nothing but listen until the bard finishes playing or the creature is attacked. Members of the bard's party need not be affected, and individuals with hit dice or levels in excess of the bard receive a saving throw to resist. A bard may attempt to plant a suggestion in the minds of mesmerized creatures ("go to sleep," "follow me," "show us your treasure," etc.), but the target automatically receives a save to resist. A bard may attempt to use her charm a number of times per day equal to her level of experience.

Trippin' tunes.

The range of the bard's music is 60 feet, and it will automatically counteract the song effects of harpies and similar "sound attacks;" likewise, it will still the noise of shriekers. In most towns, a bard can earn D6 gold per day by busking in the street. In their travels, bards pick up all sorts of rumors, legends, and stories, and has a chance indicated by their lore percentage of knowing useful information about any locale, person, or object (like magic items) encountered. Bards also learn extra languages in addition to those known due to the character's intelligence. A bard may use any magic item available to thieves.

Level	Charm	Lore	Languages
Busker	15	5	-
Rhymer	20	10	+1
Lyrist	25	15	-
Sonateer	30	20	+1
Minstrel	35	25	-
Jongleur	40	30	+1
Skald	45	40	-
Troubador	55	50	+1
Muse	65	60	-
Lore Master	75	70	+1
Bard	85	80	-
Master Bard	95	90	+1

[EDIT: I have to say I am (again) very pleased with how this one turned out, especially with regard the class abilities. I don't think bards really need spells (aside from the magic of their music), though that might come as a disappointment to folks who've been playing bards since their 2nd and 3rd edition incarnations. I know that when I played my AD&D bard (waaaaaay back in the day), I almost never resorted to using its druid spells. One thing about going through the weird "fighter-thief" progression first: you learned how to adventure withOUT magic. By the time my character became a bard, I continued to use my fighting and thief skills (supplemented by my musical ability), and the druid-shtick was a serious afterthought. With this simplification (Doug Schwegman's original write-up in SR also had spells), I think it focuses the character, making it more in line with its "parent class," the thief. I even like the 12 level limit...but I'm finding it really difficult to make that work with my 1,000,000xp limit. I might need to expand it to thirteen]