The Kensei Conundrum

In my West Marches game, I've currently got a rule set (BECMI based, but with bits and pieces from other editions that I like) that includes both "western" and "eastern" character class options. One of those is the Fighter subclass Kensei. 

Now, anyone who has downloaded Flying Swordsmen or purchased Chanbara will know that this is an archetype in both. It's a warrior dedicated to the mastery of a single weapon (most often the sword, but not necessarily). The class first appeared in Oriental Adventures 1E, and I'm pretty sure it was a kit in 2E (don't have the Complete Fighter Handbook handy at the moment), was in the 3E OA, and even has had versions in 4E and 5E (where it's a Monk subclass instead of an alternate Fighter). 

I like the kensei concept a lot. A dedicated warrior trying to master just one form of combat. A duelist. A student of that one weapon. But the version (called Kensai) in 1E OA is full of fiddly mechanics and restrictions so it's hard to play. I know, I'm playing one in one of the AD&D PbP games I participate in. 

Seiji Miyaguchi as Kyuzo in Seven Samurai, Kensei

Jeremy has been playing my version of the Kensei in my West Marches game, and we've been discussing it. I want the mechanics to be simple and streamlined. Not too many bonuses, and also not too many restrictions. The problem Jeremy has is that this means it's not all that distinct from a regular Fighter. 

My Fighter looks like this: 

Level 1: Parry (1/day, any one attack that hits does 0 damage; taken from Stars Without Number)

Level 2: Sweep (Against creatures with 1HD or less, get 1 attack per level; taken from OD&D/AD&D)

Level 4: Combat Style (choose from a list of 7 feats, some subclasses have limited selections; various inspirations)

Level 8: 2 Attacks (Against creatures with 2HD or more; from BECMI Companion but simplified)

Level 9: Smash (-5 to hit but add Strength score to damage, but this is the only attack for the round; from BECMI Companion)

Level 12: 3 Attacks (Against creatures with 2HD or more; from BECMI Companion but simplified)

My optional subclasses are Cavalier, Kensei, Martial Artist, Ranger. 

The Kensei, in this version, has a limit on weapons and armor. They are only proficient with 3 weapons of their choice, at least 1 melee and 1 ranged. They are not proficient with armor, but may give up a weapon choice to take shields. I don't want to punish a kensei who ends up in a situation where they must use a weapon besides their specialized weapon (such as a battle of ranged weapons across a ravine) with either sitting it out or getting 1/2 XP the way AD&D does. 

Instead of armor, the Kensei uses their Dex score as base AC, and adds their BAB (I use ascending AC) to that. Since they have a prerequisite of Dex 13 to take the subclass, they start with at least AC 14 (6 descending), AC 19 (1 descending) if they get lucky and roll an 18 Dex. I'm working on an alternate version for TSR-East that can't pick shields, and instead of Dex as base, gets a flat AC by level plus Dex adjustment based on the Martial Artist class I created.

One of the three weapons the kensei chooses gains weapon specialization (+1 to hit, +2 damage) from 1E Unearthed Arcana. No other Fighter type in my game gets this. This is what makes them "the best" with their chosen weapon in my version.

At 4th level, they can choose from Archery (Dex bonus to ranged damage), Cleave (free attack if an opponent drops, not during a sweep), Iaijutsu (+4 to hit, double damage on the first round of combat), or Pole Arm Master (if you have initiative for the round and hit, the opponent cannot attack you this round). Jeremy has chosen Iaijutsu, as has Don for his Lark (Fighter/Magic-User), and it hasn't seemed overpowered. There have been lots of fights where they can't use it because things start out ranged, and even with +4 to hit they don't always. Also, my TSR-East Marches is shifting things around again, so Cleave may be going away, but Dual Wield may be joining the list, after my discussions with Jeremy.

Finally, at 9th level, instead of Smash, the kensei gets Whirlwind Attack (from 1E OA). In melee, they can make one attack against each opponent within range. Jeremy and I have been discussing this, too. As I wrote it this way, it is probably too powerful in melee, but screws over ranged kensei. I suggested a few alternate ways to reword this, and a -5 penalty to hit as with smash attacks, on a single roll compared to the AC of each opponent. Also a variant of sweep for ranged attacks, up to 1 shot per level. But I may just scrap it and let them smash like other fighters, because as written it seems like something to use all the time which is not good game balance. 

In addition to suggesting allowing dual wielders (Miyamoto Musashi is of course the real world archetype most often associated with kensei and he used katana & wakizashi simultaneously), Jeremy has also suggested things like increased damage die, or a version of AD&D's Assassination Table instead of iaijutsu, or a 3E+ Monk style Flurry of Blows ability. 

I'm not too fond of any of these options. 

Increased damage die may sound good for his concept (Jeremy's PC specialized in hand axe, and he has an idea for a dagger kensei as well). But a pole arm guy getting a die bump on a 1d10 or 1d12 weapon (yes, I have one)? That might be a bit much for Classic D&D. I don't want to start down the hit point inflation path of WotC. 

Assassination in AD&D, at least the way I read it, is intended for solo play, and requires time and patience to set up that % chance of an instant kill. It isn't the sort of thing you do in the dungeon 5 seconds after finding out that there's a minotaur in the next chamber. Jeremy countered that it would be less powerful than a sleep spell, and a saving throw would make it harder to use on high HD monsters. True, but I don't necessarily equate the weapon master concept with a "one hit, one kill" Rokugan Crane Samurai vibe. Plus, that table is big and clunky. I'd rather have an easy mechanic that we can just remember without a chart lookup.

I'm not fond of Flurry of Blows, because I'm actually trying to limit the number of extra attacks floating around in my rules (one reason the Cleave special ability is going away). The more times a PC gets to attack normally, the less special the Sweep ability becomes. And again, without hit point inflation to worry about, characters don't NEED lots of extra attacks, except when facing lots of low level monsters. 

Maybe I just need to give them a small bonus to damage with their specialized weapon every few levels the way 1E OA does. Get rid of Whirlwind Attack. Maybe at high level they can Sweep against higher HD monsters (2HD, maybe 3HD?) instead of the scaling bonus? Maybe UA style double specialization (+3 to hit, +3 damage) at higher level? I'm not sure what would be the best way to balance them here.

TSR-East Classes: Ronin

I mentioned the other day that I went with Ronin as the name of the modified Fighter class because Samurai applies to retainers of a lord. Ronin are free agents. That's why a lot of the film/fiction involves ronin protagonists. The Seven Samurai were all ronin. Yojimbo - ronin. Musashi Miyamoto - ronin. Heck, even the long-running TV show Abarenbo-Shogun had the shogun running around pretending to be a ronin so he could get into adventures. Ronin have a freedom that samurai lack.

Now, in Chanbara I went with Samurai as a subclass name because in Chanbara, being a retainer (the allegiance system) is part of how you earn XP. In TSR-East, like in standard D&D, I expect treasure and monsters defeated to be the main sources of XP. So the ronin is the superior archetype. If a player wants to play a samurai in service to a lord, they can actually choose either the Ronin or the Hwarang and it will probably work out OK. But the default assumption is that the PC doesn't have a lord and master ordering them around. It's something the player can choose to have if they want.

The Ronin is based on the Fighter. In regular TSR, I give Fighters the AD&D ability to attack multiple low level opponents. They also get a fighting style (kinda like 5E but not so powerful). I'm thinking of revising the fighting styles again to make them even less powerful, though, and the Ronin is my first attempt at that. Pick a weapon group. Get a +1 bonus to damage. That's simple. Not overpowering, but worth considering.

Here's the class:

Ronin (Wave Man) AKA Liúlàngzhě, Pyolyuja

Prime Requisite: Str or Dex [13 +5%, 16 +10%]

Hit Die: d8 to 9^th level, +3/level after

Arms: all weapons, all armor

Special Abilities: fighting style, cleave, multiple attacks

Ronin Advancement
Level	XP	BAB	Abilities
1	0	+1	Fighting Style
2	2000	+1	Cleave
3	4000	+1
4	8000	+3	Fighting Style
5	16,000	+3
6	32,000	+3
7	64,000	+5
8	120,000	+5	2 Attacks
9	240,000	+5	Improved Fighting Style
10	360,000	+7
11	480,000	+7
12	600,000	+7	3 Attacks
13	720,000	+9
14	840,000	+9
15	960,000	+9

Fighting Style: A ronin specializes in certain weapons, gaining a +1 bonus to damage with those weapons. At 4^th level they may choose a second fighting style. At 9^th level, the ronin’s damage bonus with one of their fighting styles improves to +2.

Axes: hand axe, battle axe, pole arm, etc.

Bludgeons: club, mace, war hammer, staff, etc.

Bows: short bow, long bow, crossbow, etc.

Chains: nunchaku, meteor hammer, kusari-gama, etc.

Spears: spear, javelin, trident, naginata, lance, etc.

Swords: katana, jian, dao, wakizashi, dagger, etc.

Cleave: A ronin of 2^nd level or higher facing opponents with 1HD or less may make one attack per level each round.

Multiple Attacks: A ronin facing opponents with 1+1 HD or higher may attack twice per round at 8^th level, and three times per round at 12^th level. 

	Ronin
Save Level:	1-3	4-6	7-9	10-12	13-15
Death Ray/Poison	12	10	8	6	4
Magic Wand	16	11	9	7	5
Paralysis/Turn to Stone	14	12	10	8	6
Dragon Breath	15	13	11	9	7
Rod/Staff/Spell	16	14	12	10	8

Mentzer Cover to Cover: Fighters

The Cleric class took four pages (2.5 of class description, 1.5 of First Level Spells), but the Fighter class takes only one.  And doesn't really need more.

As the descriptive text tells us, every party of adventurers should have at least one Fighter, with more being better.  Fighters don't have special abilities, but their normal abilities (to hit and damage monsters, to take hits and damage, to use a variety of weapons, their generally high Strength) make them self-sufficient and more likely to survive than other classes, especially in solo or small group adventures.

I can agree with that.  And the advice also dovetails nicely with some other advice to new players - Fighters are a simple yet effective class.  As a veteran gamer, I can appreciate efforts like 3E and 4E D&D to give the Fighter more options (I do a bit myself with my current set of house rules, and Flying Swordsmen/Chanbara are all about options to customize your fighting style).  *And now I'm failing in my Google search to find the artifact I'm looking for.  There was an ad from Dragon or Dungeon magazine or some such, giving advice to beginner players to ignore what the group says about needing such and such class to fill a gap, in your first game insist on playing a Fighter.  Maybe someone out there can help with a link, I'm not finding it.*

Anyway, Fighters are simple to play yet effective for a reason.  I like that.  They're also the fantasy trope most likely to be familiar to new players.  We all have heard stories of King Arthur and his Knights, or Greek heroes like Theseus and Hercules, or Conan, John Carter, and other pulp heroes, not to mention that aside from Gandalf the Company of Thorin Oakenshield and the Fellowship of the Ring are mostly made up of what in D&D would be Fighters.  Swords & Sorcery and High Fantasy/Romance alike tend to feature the guys with swords as the heroes and the guys with sorcery as the villains.

On the text itself, one thing that jumped out at me on reading this that didn't upon reading the Cleric entry is in the "XP" section.  When you collect the listed number of XP, you automatically move up to the next level.  Again, this is a point of the rules that became ingrained in me from the start.  I've never liked the "training" rules in AD&D.  Yes, it's more realistic to need to train (and it can siphon off excess cash), but I'm not sure that I find those rules to be fun.  Much better to just let the characters level up when they have the points, and stick to the adventure, IMO.

Another interesting tidbit is at the end of the description.  It advises players of Fighters to seek out magical weapons, and also especially potions of healing, since they're more likely to need them.  Funny that the other Basic Set potion that is most useful to Fighters, the Potion of Growth, is not mentioned.  Magic armor is also not mentioned.

And speaking of knights...

Why don't we see more jousting in D&D?

Mentzer's set had the nice tournament jousting rules, which we used to good effect back in the day.  But I don't see much love going to the lance in most games. 

Sure, in a dungeon it's impractical to bring along a war horse.  But goblins mounted on dire wolves with lances would make for a tough and memorable encounter, I'd bet.

In the wilderness, though, I'd expect more players to equip their fighter types with lances, and use them.  But I rarely do.  Why?  In Classic (Mentzer/RC, or Moldvay with variable weapon damage in play) lances do 2d8 damage on a charge (if, like me, you embrace the 3E idea of 'double damage' doubling the dice rolled, not simply multiplying the single die's result).  That's a fair amount of damage, if that charge attack hits.

I have used jousting/lance combat in games before.  In the first 3E game I ran with the Toyama group, I was basing many events on Malory and the Mabinogion, so there were a few places where NPC knights would challenge the party to a joust.  The players seemed to like it, but they never initiated a joust of their own.

Is this just something about the people I've been playing with?  Or is it also common in other groups?  Where's the love for the lance?

Limited Clerical Spellcasting: Feature, not Bug

A recent post at BX Blackrazor reminded me of one of the things I think is an important feature of TSR D&D, in all its forms, that was turned on its head in WotC D&D.

Clerics can wear armor, fight, and use spells (as can the Elf class in Classic).  Yet the Cleric has (again, in Classic) 8 spells per level, while the M-U gets 12 spells per level.

In BX, the Cleric gets up to 5th level spells (again, so does the Elf), while the M-U gets 6th level spells.  AD&D and BECMI allow up to 9th level spells for M-Us, but only 7th level spells for Clerics.

That's a bit of balance that I think is important.  Clerics (and Elves) can do both fight and cast spells, but they don't get to fight as well as the Fighter (with a lower Hit Die type, and limited weaponry for the Cleric and level limits and a high XP cost for the Elf), nor have as much spell casting oomph as the Magic-User (again, with the level limit blocking Elves, and with the generally smaller list, lower ceiling, and in Classic not getting a spell at 1st level for Clerics).

That's the sort of simple and intuitive trade-off I like.

These sorts of characters ARE viable

I'm gonna post a few D&D (BECM/RC) characters. Lots of players might look at them and think they're worthless. But played right, in the right sort of game (in other words, the kind of game I'd like to run), they should actually do alright.

Cleric Level 5
S11 I9 W12 D10 C10 Ch11
Chain, Shield, Mace, Sling
Turn: SkD, ZD, GT, WiT, Wr7, M9, Sp11, V-
Spells: Detect Magic, Light, Find Traps, Speak with Animals

Fighter Level 4
S12 I10 W11 D9 C9 Ch11
Plate, Shield, Spear, Light Crossbow

Magic-User Level 4
S8 I12 W11 D9 C10 Ch10
Dagger
Spells: Floating Disk, Ventriloquism, ESP, Locate Object

Thief Level 5
S9 I11 W9 D12 C10 Ch11
Leather, Hand Axe, Short Bow
Skills: F/RT30 OL35 CSS91 MS40 HS28 PP40 HN50

No magic items, just what's listed above, and the normal assortment of 10' poles, ropes, torches, oil, and all that jazz.

For a dungeon exploration game, these guys should actually do alright. If they try to avoid fighting as much as possible, avoid obvious traps that they can't easily disarm without relying on the Thief, and make sure each delve has some sort of purpose to it, and leave the dungeon when that purpose is fulfilled (like mapping a certain amount, or scouting the lair of a certain monster).

But most players would rather go with the best weapons, the most offensive spells, and characters with high stats in a multitude of areas.

Now, that pimped out party would likely do better than these guys at combat, but mix in one of these guys with the high octane group, and there shouldn't be a problem unless, to follow the 3E/4E philosophy, everyone's expected to share the load in a combat encounter.

Back to Basics

I've spent quite a bit of time in the past couple years designing some versions of AD&D classes for use with Classic D&D that I'm happy with and think play well with the others. I've got a Barbarian, Bard, Cavalier (Paladin), Druid, Illusionist, Ranger, and Half-Orc in addition to the standard 7 (which have some house rules attached to them to a greater or lesser extent).

When I first started up this blog I was often blogging about them, but I lost steam somewhere around the time I'd gotten past the classic 4 character classes.

I think it's partially because in the back of my mind, I've realized that these extra classes are sort of pointless.

Sure, the Cavalier allows a Fighter type to cast some Cleric spells, Druid allows the Mentzer Druid spells to be availabe, Illusionist allows some AD&D illusion spells to be ported over, Half-Orc works as a Fighter/Thief or Assassin stand-in, etc.

But maybe I don't really need all that.

Give any character with a high Int and Cha a musical instrument and they can be a Bard. Give any character woodscraft and they can be a Ranger. A Barbarian is just a character from a more primitive area than the main campaign focus.

I'm sure you've heard it all argued before on Dragonsfoot, Knights and Knaves Alehouse, or some other FRPG website.

Anyway, I think I'm gonna scrap those extra classes as player options (at least at first) and only use them as NPCs from time to time.

Back when we were trying to get the Korean gals to play D&D, they really got in the way. Too many choices, and they had no real way to judge them. It also leads to the line of thinking among a lot of players a few years younger than me who think everything should have an effect on your character sheet.

Back in the day, we used to just roleplay out differences. My main character, Gwydion, was a Fighter who I modeled after a knight. Heavy armor, two handed sword, war horse (later griffon) and lance. My best friend, who goes by the internet alias KillingMachine, had two of his secondary characters named after the protagonists of the cheesy 80's swords & boobies B-movie "The Barbarians" but mechanically they were no different from Gwydion. They were just roleplayed as barbarians, and we rolled with it.

That's what I think I need to bring back to my games to make me happy. Players can be anything they want through roleplay, as long as they use one of the 7 basic classes for game mechanics.

Ninjas in your Game [Ninja Week]

Well, it's about time to actually talk about ninjas in your game. We'll assume if you're reading this blog you're probably playing D&D, or one of its family of games. If you're playing a skill based game or an indie game, you can pretty much craft a ninja with that system, and you probably don't need much help from me.

If you want to play a ninja in D&D though, it can be a bit tough, depending on which system you're using.

In OD&D, depending on if you're using any supplements or not, you've got the baseline Fighter as an option in the core rules. Not the best choice, some may think, but it's all in how you describe the character and what your DM allows you to get away with. With Greyhawk you get the Thief, and Blackmoor throws in both the Assassin and Monk. These three classes all work really well, even if none are specialized as 'ninja.' Baseline AD&D also gives you these three classes, and the Ranger also can work.

In B/X you're pretty much stuck with the Thief as option #1, and Fighter as a backup. BECMI/RC adds in the Mystic, similar to the Monk. B/X Thief does get a nice bonus in being able to use all weapons, but the BECMI list is good enough (better than the AD&D short list).

Of course, Oriental Advetures has a dedicated Ninja class, but it's a bit complex. The idea is that a ninja should keep their ninja identity secret from the other PCs, so they allow humans to multiclass. You can't only be a Ninja, you have to be a Ninja/something. Needlessly complex, and kinda setting up another Paladin problem, where dick DMs are going to be constantly forcing the Ninja player into situations where they have to either expose themselves as a ninja (requiring them to either turn on their companions or else have the clan hunting after them for the rest of the ninja's life), or else do nothing really for a large part of the game.

2E, with the Complete Ninja Handbook, tried to alleviate some of the problems. The use of 2E kits allows not only a varitey of Ninja class characters (although they're just a variant Thief with slightly different weapon proficiencies and starting skill percentages), but there are also kits for other classes to belong to the ninja clan. That makes an all-ninja campaign possible, but there are still the problems with the ninja mixed with the standard adventuring classes. The book does address some of the problems, and gives a few possible ideas for how to deal with them. All in all, it's not a bad book, even if it does rely on some mechanical choices that I'm not too fond of (kits, proficiencies, etc.).

Now 3E actually, IMO, did the ninja right. In the PHB classes, with the way feats and skills and multiclassing work in that edition, you could use the Rogue (Thief), Ranger, Monk, or Bard even as a base, and with some multiclassing amongst these classes or a few others (Fighter and Sorcerer being good choices, depending on your idea of what a ninja should be), you could craft a fairly good representation of it. That's kind of the strong point of 3E anyway, allowing you to custom build the sort of character you want.

3E's version of OA made another good choice. Instead of adding a Ninja class, they told you to do what I just told you about above. Of course there were ninja Prestige Classes you could take if you just absolutely HAD to have the word 'ninja' on your character sheet [and were too dense to just write it there yourself]. But then 3rd party supplements ended up coming out with all sorts of alternate ninja classes, not to mention the fan-made ones. [I used to spend a lot of time, during my 3E days, on the OA forums over at Wizbro's website.]

4E, I don't know, and it probably doesn't matter if they have a 'ninja' class or not, cause it will play like every other class in 4E.

Anyway, for those of you not playing 3E (I assume most of you), I think the real trick to playing a ninja successfully in a campaign is to avoid the assumed dynamic of 1E OA. Yes, your character is a ninja. Yes, you likely don't want commoners or ENEMY samurai to know that. Yes, you maybe want anyone to know your real name (like Spiderman or Superman, you need that alter-ego). But your adventuring companions should at least know that you are a ninja.

Maybe it comes from the misunderstanding of the concept of 'honor' as the samurai saw it. The reason they used trained ninja for stealth, spying, theft, sabbotage, etc. was because it would be dishonorable for THE SAMURAI to do such. Samurai still wanted all that stuff done, they just didn't want to get their hands dirty. So a samurai would not instantly cut down any ninja they encountered if they learned they were ninja because said ninja was dishonorable. If they were a daimyo, they'd likely be interested in hiring the ninja. Unless the ninja is spying on or trying to assassinate you at the moment, of course, then you'd want them cut down.

Samurai didn't expect everyone to live by their code of honor. So yes, your Samurai character could, and would, assuming a standard D&D type adventuring mindset, travel with a Ninja. It would be the smart thing to do. The Samurai would know that there will be situations that might be easiest to deal with using dishonorable methods. Mr. Ninja, step up please, it's your turn!

Character class frequency

Just a random thought that popped into my head.

The original order of the six ability scores:

Strength
Intelligence
Wisdom
Dexterity
Constitution
Charisma

Has S/I/W first because those were the prime requisites classes presented in OD&D, Fighter/Magic-User/Cleric. Gygax also used the Thief, which is why Dex comes 4th.

Was it assumed that classes with a higher prime requisite in the order would be more common? Seems obvious that Fighters should abound. Were Magic-Users assumed to be the second most common class, then Clerics, and Thieves being a bit rarer?

Thieves, rogues, and scoundrel types are more common in the source literature than Clerics, but then Clerics made it into the original rules set, while Thieves only made the first supplement.

Class act

Okay, it's finally time to give a rundown of my home-brewed classes. At least as they stand now. I'm always wondering if I should just strip things back to the basics again. But for now, I've got the following classes available to my players:

Barbarian--take the Dwarf, raise HD to d10, eliminate weapon restrictions and Dwarf racial abilities, and add in a foraging bonus and a small AC bonus if they wear light or no armor. Max Level 12, Minimum Wis & Con 9.

Bard--originally based on the Elf class, it's now more of a Cleric/Thief hybrid. Original spell list, casts as Elf for spells per level but as Cleric for availability, Read Languages and Listen, plus Lore skill and bardic counter-music ability. Max Level 10, Minimum Int & Wis 9.

Cavalier--the Mentzer Avenger/Paladin (Fighter with 1/3 Cleric ability), but without alignment restrictions, and a mounted combat bonus. Max level 15, Minimum Wis 9.

Cleric--already mentioned my house rules for them

Druid--Cleric/Magic-User cross, acts like a Cleric in most respects, but spells from level 1, little weapon or armor ability, a few nature abilities, and shape-changing at Name Level. Max Level 14.

Fighter--also been mentioned.

Illusionist--Magic-User/Thief cross, mostly as M-U, but with a different spell list (some new spells taken from AD&D, a few I made up myself), Pick Pockets, Hide in Shadows, Move Silently as a Thief, Thief weapons list. Max Level 12, Min Dex 9.

Magic-User--again, I talked about them before.

Ranger--based on the Halfling, but with d8 HD, bonus to hit & damage against goblinoids & giants, tracking at Halfling hiding chances. Max Level 10, Min Con 9.

Thief--talked about them, too.

Dwarf--only thing I changed was allowing them to create magic weapons, armors, rings or miscellaneous items at high levels.

Elf--didn't change a thing.

Halfling--again, nothing changed.

Half-Orc--the Fighter/Thief cross (or Assassin of sorts). d6 HD, any armor or weapons, a few Fighter combat options, Infravision, Open Locks, Find/Remove Traps, Pick Pockets, Move Silently, Hide in Shadows, Climb Sheer Surfaces as Thief, plus Disguise skill, and a set x3 backstab damage bonus (my Thief gains multipliers as they level. Max Level 10, Minimum Int & Dex 9.

I'm the greatest swordsman that ever lived!

Fighters. Good old solid, dependable Fighters.

Some people think they're the most boring class, but if that's so, then why are 90% of all mythical, legendary, or modern fictional fantasy heroes warrior types?

Sure, in D&D the Fighter has the fewest special abilities. In a game where the non-spell casters are pretty cookie cutter in abilities and class bonus functions, and Fighters don't really get any, they look boring on paper.

But in play, most of the stars of the show tend to mirror fiction--they're the Fighters. At least in my experience. Even the high level spell casters, who can steal the show, usually do so in one or two encounters, then the Fighters take care of the rest.

Anyway, my houseruled Fighter pretty much looks like the Classic D&D Fighter we all know and love (or hate). As per Mentzer, at high levels they get Multiple Attacks, Parry, Disarm, and Smash maneuvers. I don't want to fiddle with "can I hit it on a 2?" questions (I'm using ascending AC and attack bonuses rather than matrices), so if they get multiple attacks, they just get multiple attacks. I doubt that will make the Nightwalkers or Elemental Rulers any less scary. Especially since I've capped the basic 4 classes at level 20.

The one AD&D rule I borrowed for Fighters is Weapon Specialization. At 4th level, a Hero can choose one weapon they prefer, and get a +1 to hit and +2 to damage. (No silly 3/2 attacks or anything like that though.) I'm considering dropping the level of WS to 3, for the single reason that the level is called Swordsmaster. It would seem thematically to fit, and would actually give the Fighter something besides that extra 1d8 hit points at that level. They already get a bonus to hit and better saving throws at level 4.

In a departure from Mentzer, the chance to become a Paladin/Avenger/Knight no longer exists. Paladin and Avenger became their own classes, then I combined them and brought back the Knight into my own Cavalier class (more on that in the future). Also, with the level cap lowered, I changed around the levels when multiple attacks are gained.

So my Fighter is a little more spiffy than the Classic standard, but not really that much different (and I avoid the need for Weapon Mastery cluttering up my game by giving Fighters only a flat bonus to one weapon they prefer).

Good old Fighters. When the chips are down, the M-U and Cleric are out of spells and the Thief's been cursed by some bit of treasure she was trying to steal, they're gonna pull the group's collective ass out of the fire.