CLERICS!

In this thread on the Delving Deeper google+ page, Simon Bull talks about alternative level titles for clerics. I'm not a fan of the cleric, as I've indicated before. I like the idea of a crusader/holy warrior/demon hunter, etc, but the implementation of the class doesn't work for me. I have some ideas on that point. They definitely make some implications about setting, so may not be everyone's cup of tea. At any rate, new level titles were in order to better reflect what I'm thinking for clerics.

Level Titles

1    Novice (of the Order of . . .)
2    Chaplain
3    Brother-Sergeant
4    Knight-Errant
5    Brother-Knight
6    Justiciar
7    Knight-Commander
8    Knight-Marshall
9    Prior

A Novice is one who is newly initiated into an Order. They are given martial instruction, and are trained in the doctrine of the Order. They are not schooled in the Rites of the Order at this time, however. Novices are only one step above the laity, and are a level between rank-and-file troops and non-comms. Most initiates never rise above this level in the hierarchy.

Chaplain is an arduous rank within the Order. It is something of a crucible. Chaplains are expected to demonstrate leadership, knowledge of the doctrines of the Order, as well as the dogma and canon of the faith. They lead the laity in prayer and perform many common functions, such as marriage, baptisms, and presiding over funerals. They are also indoctrinated into the mysteries of the Rites, and are expected to learn how to apply them to further the goals of the Order. Chaplains rarely venture out of their priory, and many clerics remain Chaplains for their entire lives, content to tend the needs of the laity.

Brother-Sergeants lead units of Novices and lay-troops in battle. They are expected to function as part of the greater whole and must exhibit deep understanding of battlefield tactics. They also typically lead the Novices under their command in prayer and minister to their religious needs.

In order for a cleric to advance through the ranks of a militant order, he must prove himself worthy. Up to this point in his advancement he has shown that he possesses the ability to follow orders as a Novice, compassion, humility, and perseverance as a Chaplain, and the ability to lead and minister his soldiers as a Brother-Sergeant. Now comes the time when he must venture into the wider world as a Knight-Errant. He sallies forth, spreading the virtues of his order by his example. Sometimes a Knight-Errant sets out upon a specific charge, such as locating a holy relic or defeating an enemy of the Order. Many simply wander, spreading their faith, drawing potential Novices to the Order. This "time in the wilderness" is crucial to their development in the Order. Clerics who lack self-direction and the strength of their convictions rarely progress beyond this point.

Once having proven himself as a Knight-Errant, the cleric advances to Brother-Knight. He returns to the Priory and gains his spurs. Brother-Knights are the heavy cavalry of the Order. They are also dispatched individually or in small units for specific objectives.

As Novices and Chaplains clerics are steeped in the doctrine and canon of the faith. The bulk of their experience and training from there is predominantly martial. Having proven himself a peerless champion of the faith on the battlefield, now the cleric must show himself a champion of the Order's justice. As a Justiciar, the cleric travels a circuit of the towns and villages under his Priory's charge, dispensing justice. Secular courts hear cases involving everyday matters, but in cases that somehow intersect with the purview of the faith, it is the Justiciar that sits in judgement. With his time as a Justiciar, the cleric has proven his worth in all aspects of Priory life and prudence in his conduct in the faith.

The next step is Knight-Commander. The Knight-Commander leads squadrons of Brother-Knights on the field of battle. This is the first step to becoming Prior.

A Knight-Marshall commands all the military forces of a Priory. Obviously, there is only one Knight-Marshall in a Priory. They are responsible for the well-being of the Novices, Brother-Sergeants, Brother-Knights, and Knight-Commanders under their command. They are expected to plan and prosecute large scale military actions.

Finally, there is the Prior. The entire Priory and all its inhabitants are his charge. Additionally, he is responsible for the religious needs of all the laity within the demesne of his Priory. He is also the final arbiter of canon justice within the demesne.

It was Simon's thoughts on this matter that started me thinking, so a big Thank You to the estimable Mr. Bull.

A Proto-idea

This only just came to me over morning coffee. I don't have time to dwell on it this morning, and it is so nascent I may forget it if I don't record it. So, here goes . . .

Start with the four main classes, cleric, fighter, magic-user, thief. Everyone selects one at character generation like always. But instead of limitless levels, or a cap at 10, 14, or whatever, each basic class only goes to 3rd level. At 4th level you essentially choose a new class.

Here's the thing, though: the new class is a natural progression of the old class. So, someone who starts as a fighter would progress to a "fighting" class. Say, a ranger, or a paladin, or barbarian. There could be a lot of these classes. Progress through three levels of this new class, then change again. Subsequent changes become increasingly restrictive, based on the "class path" up to that point. That isn't to say you couldn't go back to a "branch point" and start along a different path, there would just be some sort of penalties for doing so.

I'm not sure if this would work with OD&D. I like the idea of it, though. Hopefully I'll have time to develop it, and see how it shapes up.

Delving Deeper Barbarian

This is an idea I've been contemplating for a while. It is based on the Barbarian from White Dwarf #4, along with the skill system suggested by the Thief.

The Barbarian

HD as Fighter
Same XP and Attack Column as Cleric
Any weapons, excepting crossbows
Any armor (Chain imposes a -1 penalty to certain skill rolls, Plate imposes a -2)

• +2 bonus to the following saving throws: normal elemental effects (such as desert heat or arctic cold), poison, and disease
• Should a barbarian fail a saving throw vs Fear, he flies into a fit of rage, attacking the cause of the fear with a +2 to-hit and damage. This attack is single-minded, ignoring any other threats. During this rage, the barbarian's AC is increased by 2.
• Barbarians are canny fighters, and difficult to hit. AC is one better, no matter what armor is worn.
• A barbarian's opponents are oft-times unprepared for the suddeness and ferocity of his initial attack. If the barbarian has initiative, his first attack is devastating. Consult the following table:

Level	To-hit bonus	Damage
1-4	+2	Double
5-8	+2	Triple
9+	+3	Quadruple

• Barbarians are very cagey and alert to danger. If awake and alert, they are at -1 to be surprised, and at 6^th level and above, they are never surprised.
• Barbarians are consummate outdoorsmen. As such they possess the following skills:

  Tracking

  
  

  Survival (Finding water, suitable shelter site/materials, fire making)

  Foraging (Hunting*, edible plants)

  Stalking (Hiding and Moving Silently)*

  
  

  *Affected by the armor penalty, if applicable.

  
  These skills are successful on a d6 roll of 3+. However, this only applies to the barbarian's “home environment”. In other environments, they are successful on rolls of 5+.
  
  

Ruminations on OD&D: Archetypes

An archetype is defined as "an ideal example of a type". We've all heard D&D classes referred to as archetypes. They are the base foundations of the characters found in the source literature. The idea is that using one of the three (or four, if you go to Greyhawk's thief), you can model pretty much any character from the stories we all know and love. Like all things with D&D, though, this takes imagination. Is Aragorn a fighting-man, straight from the book? What about Conan? Are Gandalf or Elric magic users? Of course not.

I enjoy reading new classes. I used to love it when the latest issue of Dragon featured a new class. I don't like having them in my game so much, though. For me they are like detailed skill systems: they limit player options. In fact, a lot of classes are almost like skill packages added to one of the Big 4. They take one of the archetypes and add special abilities, impose a few restrictions, tweak the XP table, and BAM! New class. The only problem is, when you make a class that automatically enjoys a +2 to saves vs Illusion, it feels like they're the only ones that should have that. Furthermore, at character creation, if a player envisions a character that sees through illusion better than most, it implies that he must be that class. Otherwise, it cheapens that class.

One of the things I really like about DCC is its philosophy about this sort of thing. In a nutshell, if you want your character to be perceptive enough to see through illusions better than most, figure out a way to quest for it. Maybe perform a great deed for the god of acuity and he will grant you such a boon.

I also don't have a problem as referee with working with a player to create and develop the character he envisions. If he wants a guy good and tracking and wilderness survival, I would rather him roll up a fighter and we'll role play the rest. I'll just give him a little bonus on whatever roll I call for in wilderness situations. If you play with a relatively mature group that is out to have a good game, that's no problem at all.

So, the bottom line is that I like additional classes as ideas. They may give me an idea for a different direction to take a standard class. Suggest some abilities that a player may like to add or quest for. Yet, when it is all said and done, all the characters in my game will be firmly based on one of the archetypes.

DD Ranger

Ok, here's a first draft of a Ranger for Delving Deeper. I based it on the Thief, which I like a lot. Without further ado . . .

Same HD, XP, and attacks as Fighter
No shields
Only Leather or Chain armor (Chain imposes a -1 penalty to certain skill rolls)
No scaling damage bonus (one of my house rules)

Skills @d6 3+
All function only in natural environments.

• Tracking (includes hiding ranger's own tracks)
• Navigation
• Survival (Finding water, suitable shelter site/materials, fire making)
• Foraging (Hunting, edible plants)
• Herbal Healing (as Lay on Hands IF access to herbs)
• Stalking (hiding and Moving Silently)

Favored Terrain
All Rangers perform best in terrain they are most familiar with. The terrains correspond to those found in the Wilderness Encounter tables (pages 19 and 24 of the Referee's Guide). They are Swamp, Woods, Plains, Crags, Desert, Arctic, and Jungle. Personally, I don't think Town is appropriate, though Necropolis might be, for some sort of undead-stalking ranger.

The ranger benefits from operating in his favored terrain as follows:

• Rolls d8 for skill rolls, still needing 3+
• Damage +1 every odd-numbered level vs creatures listed under favored terrain in encounter table (does not include PC races)
• Knowledgeable about creatures inhabiting favored terrain (per encounter table), also includes natural flora and fauna
• Only Surprised on rolls of 6

Given reasonable exposure to new terrain types (which may include experience with similar terrain at the Referee's discretion), the ranger may add a new terrain to his list of favored terrains at levels 3, 6, 9, and 12. Alternatively, the ranger may elect to improve his skills in an already mastered favored terrain. In that case he may move "up" a die type. 

So, for example, a ranger whose favored terrain is Woods gains 3rd level. The only other terrain the character has adventured in has been Desert, and he has no intention of returning. The player elects instead to improve his skills in Woods and will now roll d10 (still needing 3+). 

Note that this only improves the abilities listed under Skills, the Damage and Surprise rolls remain unchanged.

That's it. It's a pretty rough write-up, I know, and it is entirely possible I've missed some things. Please let me know if you notice anything I left out or unclear, along with any other thoughts/comments.

Random Thoughts (Because All My Thoughts Are Random Lately)

So, here we are in Day Whatever of my undefined mood. There is nothing good about it, but there are differences in how I think. For example, when I'm not particularly focused, I tend to think in the abstract/big picture sense. Case in point . . .

OD&D Classes


Being as how Mr. Gygax went to such lengths to stress that the LBBs were guidelines, isn't it possible that the classes given were: (1) Examples (2) Starting points (3) Some barebones to get things rolling? I know I have pontificated about using just the basic three classes. I was thinking about the Greyhawk supplement and the new classes in Strategic Review. It really occurred to me that the main three are starting points, they are the basic classes, the chassis, if you will. Look at all the variants and sub-classes of the fighter. It could be argued that they are attempts to power-up the fighter, but I don't buy that for two reasons: #1 - Why not just power-up the fighter? Why do you have to cook up a sub-type? #2 - The variants all have limits imposed upon them.

That bring me to another thought: How many referees out there stick to the book when it comes to limitations placed on classes? If a player wants to play a ranger, but his stat rolls don't quite measure up, do you fudge things in some way? I always did, mainly because players have always been in short supply and I didn't want to jeopardize the campaign before it even started by being inflexible during character generation. Now that I think about it, though, it's more than a little ridiculous. I'm from the time of Gygaxian Naturalism and my campaign design tends to bear that out. So, here I am trying to detail a consistent and internally logical world, but throwing consistency and logic out the window when it came time to roll up characters.

It is stated here and there in the books that certain classes are rare or uncommon. The rules support this notion mechanically by imposing restrictions on the classes. These restrictions make the class in question either more difficult for a character to take, and/or provide an undesirable counterpoint for the player to contend with. For example, the Paladin. This class requires a Charisma of 17 before it can even be taken. A 17 is a tall order, even if you roll 4d6, keep the best three and arrange to taste. Not to mention that the paladin is a fighter sub-class, so that 17 would be better served applied to Strength or Constitution. Then there's the fact that the paladin must be Lawful (we're talking Greyhawk here), and only associate with Neutral characters for brief, specific missions. If these restrictions are enforced, paladins would indeed be rare, because it would take a certain player and campaign to take the class.

Most of the classes outside the main three have such restrictions, that if ignored, can lead to them overshadowing the originals. I think that is the real strength of the original three classes; their versatility. If you do ignore the restrictions on the sub-classes and allow them to be more freely selectable it kind of wrecks the internal structure that supports the relative power balance between the classes.

BtPG Classes

Here's some updated class info, including the aforementioned XP charts. The "Fights As/Defends As" columns refer to the character's ability to be an extremely dangerous opponent at higher levels, regardless of equipment. I want to model the notion that a 6th level Might character, for example, is someone you just do not want to fuck with. I'm not sure if this is the best way to do it, but it's the first way I'm going to try.
Obviously, the first attribute increase is to one of the two attributes that are tied to the class. The second, "Any Other" bonus may be applied to any attribute, but may not raise any attribute above +3. Attributes higher than that are reserved for gods, legends, and the heroes of tragedy.

Might

Adds STR in combat

Subtracts DEX from opponent's HD in combat

May divide HD among multiple opponents

May wear any armor

May use shields

May use any weapons (including intelligent swords)

May use magical scrolls written for Might characters

Adventurers of Might could be called Fighting-men, Rangers, Skalds, Samurai, Paladins, Knights, Barbarians, Soldiers, Mercenaries, etc.

Level	Experience Points	Hit Dice (HD)	Fights as...	Defends as . . .	Attribute Increase
1	0	1+2	Same	Same
2	2000	2	Same	Same
3	4000	3	Same	Same
4	8000	4	+1 Category	Same	+1 STR or CON
5	16000	5+1	+1 Category	Same
6	32000	6	+1 Category	+1 Category
7	64000	7+1	+2 Category	+1 Category
8	128000	8+2	+2 Category	+1 Category	+1 Any Other
9	240000	9+3	+2 Category	+2 Category
10	360000	10+1	+2 Category	+2 Category

Mien

May only wear Light Armor

Subtracts DEX from opponent's HD in combat

May Dodge melee attacks (see Combat rules for details)

Adds CHAR to Influence and Reaction checks

Adds DEX to Initiative

Subtracts DEX from hits received (not from opponent's HD)

Only Surprised on a roll of “1”

May only use Light Weapons

May attempt to use any magic items (subject to failure roll)

Automatically fights

Adventurers of Mien could be thought of as Thieves, Rogues, Scouts, Bards, Acrobats, Entertainers, Smugglers, Bandits, Outlaws, etc.

Level	Experience Points	Hit Dice (HD)	Fights as...	Defends as . . .	Attribute Increase
1	0	1	Same	Same
2	1200	2	Same	Same
3	2400	2+1	Same	Same
4	4800	3	Same	Same	+1 DEX or CHAR
5	9600	3+1	Same	Same
6	20000	4	Same	Same
7	40000	4+1	Same	Same
8	60000	5	Same	Same	+1 Any Other
9	90000	5+1	+1 Category	Same
10	125000	5+2	+1 Category	Same

Magic

Adds INT to number of spells known

Adds WIZ to Casting Rolls

May only use a dagger or quarterstaff

Any other weapons used roll on “Brawling” row (But see below)

May use one-handed magic swords beginning at 5th level

May not wear armor, nor use shields

May use any non-weapon/armor magic items

Adventurers of Magic could be thought of as Wizards, Sorcerers, Diviners, Summoners, Fortune Tellers, Soothsayers, etc.

Level	Experience Points	Hit Dice (HD)	Fights as...	Defends as . . .	Attribute Increase
1	0	1	Same	Same
2	2500	1+1	Same	Same
3	5000	2	Same	Same
4	10000	2+1	Same	Same	+1 INT or WIZ
5	20000	3	Same	Same
6	35000	3+1	Same	Same
7	50000	4	Same	Same
8	75000	5	+1 Category	Same	+1 Any Other
9	100000	5+1	+1 Category	Same
10	200000	5+2	+1 Category	+1 Category

BtPG Classes

Character Classes

Adventurers are divided into three broad classes, related to how they approach their adventuring careers. The classes are Might, Mien, and Magic.

Adventurers who rely on Might depend on physical solutions to overcome most problems. They may well be quite intelligent, eloquent, or agile, but they always deal with their problems in a direct and usually physical manner.

Adventurers of Might could be called Fighting-men, Rangers, Skalds, Samurai, Paladins, Knights, Barbarians, Soldiers, Mercenaries, etc.

Adventurers who rely on Mien survive on their wits and charm. They may be strong or intelligent, but force of arms or scholarly pursuits are not their way. They deal with their problems by deftly side-stepping or smooth talking.

Adventurers of Mien could be thought of as Thieves, Rogues, Scouts, Bards, Acrobats, Entertainers, Smugglers, Bandits, Outlaws, etc.

Adventurers who rely on Magic depend on unseen eldritch forces to deal with the perils of adventure. They may be strong of arm or glib of tongue, but when trouble starts they summon their magic.

Adventurers of Magic could be thought of as Wizards, Sorcerers, Diviners, Summoners, Fortune Tellers, Soothsayers, etc.

The player is free to use any terms desired to describe his character, but an adventurer of Might has Might as his class, no matter how he is described.

Might

Adds STR in combat

Adds CON to hp

May divide HD among multiple opponents

May wear any armor

May use shields

May use any weapons

Mien

May only wear Light Armor

Subtracts DEX from opponent's HD in combat

May Dodge melee attacks

Adds CHAR to Influence and Reaction checks

Adds DEX to Initiative

Only Surprised on a roll of “1”

May only use Light Weapons

Magic

Adds INT to number of spells known

Adds WIZ to Casting Rolls

May only use a dagger or quarterstaff

Any other weapons used roll on “Brawling” row (But see below)

May use one-handed magic swords beginning at 5th level

May not wear armor, nor use shields

All I can Say Is WOW!

I'm pretty sure I've been clear on my feelings concerning the Thief as a class. In case I haven't, I'll sum them up: I hate it. Not for itself, it's nothing personal. I hate it for what it represents. It represents the beginning of the end of the "any character can try anything" mentality of old-school style play.

Guess what? Through a comment on the latest post at Tenkar's Tavern, I saw this post at B/X Blackrazor. The sheer awesomeness of this is off the chart. It solves two huge problems I have with the thief:

1. It keeps low-level thieves from sucking so loudly. It really is insane that a class that is devoted to doing Thiefly Shit™ should suck so horribly at it.
2. Since thieves auto-succeed at mundane Thiefly Shit™ it makes it easier to allow non-thieves to attempt "thief actions" in mundane circumstances.

For me, the thief has gotten to the point that whenever I look at a new RPG that has any relationship to D&D, the first thing I do is check for a thief class. If it's there, I then start to consider the effects of exorcising it from the available classes. This one simple blog post may have saved the thief for me.

WOW!

NPC Classes

Back in the early days there was a fairly steady stream of new classes in The Dragon. Things like the Duelist, Sentinel, and Witch, to name but a few. Many of them carried the disclaimer that they were intended as NPC classes only. Of course, being empowered by the LBBs to disregard anything I didn't want to regard, I immediately decreed them suitable for PC deployment.

These days, I can appreciate NPC-only classes. In fact, I can appreciate relegating certain "iconic" classes to "NPC Only" status. As I have made abundantly clear, I think true old school D&D only needs Fighting-Men and Magic-Users. They are archetypes. Dictionary.com defines archetype thus:

"the original pattern or model from which all things of the same kind are copied or on which they are based; a model or first form; prototype."

It is one of my jobs as referee to allow for character development to the point that a player can start with one of those two and end up wherever his imagination leads. If that means giving special abilities at appropriate times, that's what it means. Whatever fits within the character concept, campaign "reality", and player direction.

For NPCs, however, it is convenient to use subclasses, NPC classes and whatever else in order to bring the campaign to life and give it the necessary verisimilitude. While I would not allow a player to create a Paladin, for example, in my OD&D campaign, they may very well encounter a guy that can lay on hands, cure disease, and trucks around on a bad ass horse. Sure, from my perspective as referee, I know he is a Paladin. From the player's POV, or more accurately, the character's POV, that NPC is a paragon of virtue, something to aspire to.

In other cases, it is my contention that many of the other classes are just too narrow of focus, or constrained by restrictions, to make truly viable PC choices. Sometimes, it is just a matter of common sense. Why in the sweet name of Gaia would a Druid be a dungeon-crawling adventurer? For a very specific purpose with a definite goal related to nature or the balance thereof, sure thing. As a lifestyle/career path? Absolutely not.

Druids (to continue with the previous example) certainly have a place in the campaign world, as NPCs. Same thing for Rangers, Monks, and even Thieves. They should be for hire, pursuing their own agendas, not related to "killing monsters and taking their shit". A specific campaign arc that would highlight these agendas would allow for their inclusion, but the basic sandbox/dungeon crawl does not, in my opinion.

More Cleric bashing from Yours Truly

I made it clear from the title what this post is about, so if you're a fan of clerics, you might want to find something else to do for a little while.

My second-favorite class house rules (before now) was always trying to do something about clerics. I just don't like them. I've played them and they always strike me as lost in the middle. I can respect the fact that it should be a player's decision how he feels about a certain class. If Tim really digs on clerics, he should be able to play one. My only issue with that is it means that I can't do certain things I feel are necessary to my campaign. Specifically, if I do allow a cleric class, then I can't fold the cleric spells into the magic-user lists, which means, in turn, that I have to make use of NPC clerics, rather than magic-users with "cleric" spells.

Something that I especially dislike about the cleric class is the half-ass nature of it, as written. There are more religions, philosophies, pantheons, and/or systems of belief than you can shake a stick at. There is no acceptable way to abstract that down to a single representative class. So, in order to "fix" this it is needful to create a detailed pantheon, complete with how its clergy functions. That's the kind of thing I like to leave vague. It's another one of those "avoid restrictive choices" things.

No sir, clerics need to be gone like the thief, and ironically enough, for a lot of the same reasons. When I am in this hyper-LBB mood, I firmly believe that any character can be built from the two archetypes of Fighting-Man and Magic-User. Add in the absence of a restrictive skill system and the two classes become a starting point, a foundation, for the type of character you want to play.

All the cleric's spells can be folded into the M-U lists without any problems (I think). I do not believe classifying the spells in any way, thus restricting their selection, is necessary. Want to play a druid? Use mostly nature-based spells, there are quite a few. No need to make it anything official because that leads to things like "Druids can't do (whatever)". There should only ever be two broad-brush restrictions:

1. Fighting-Men can't use anything that is the purview of the Magic-User.
2. Magic-Users can't use anything that is the purview of the Fighting-Man.

Any sort of religion-based power/authority should be setting and role play based. There are numerous examples in books and movies of priests and other so-called holy men who trucked with the powers of darkness. The Bishop of Aquila in Ladyhawk cursed two lovers using dark powers. So, a church figure could be based on the M-U class and described through role play as belonging to the church. Likewise, a Fighting-Man can belong to a religious fighting order.



One thing I may do, though, is add some sort of undead-combating spells. I'm not real sure on just what, but they would go deeper than just turning undead. Enough quantity and variety to allow an M-U to model himself as some sort of Theurgist or Witchhunter.

The Thief PLUS A New Idea

A lot has been said about the Thief class. I’ve said a lot about it. I am really divided on the topic.

On one hand, when I’m in OD&D mode, I want player skill, reasoning, and description to rule the day. I love the idea of a return to the days when players said “I carefully remove the clothes from the chest, being watchful for tripwires or things of that sort. When I have them emptied, I lightly tap around inside the chest, listening for hollow spots or a false bottom.” To me, that is so much better than “I check out the chest. My Perception Check was a 15. What do I find?”

Yet, there are times when player description just isn’t enough. Describing how to pick a lock isn’t something most of us can do with any degree of accuracy, for example. So, I do think there are instances where player skill needs to give way to character skill. Besides which, I like the idea of a skulking character of unsavory repute, but he is necessary. While I like the idea of any character doing thieving things, I also like the idea that one character may be better at it, or an aspect of it, than another character.

I’ve given some thought to various methods of making this happen. I could just allow the Thief from Greyhawk to the available classes. If I did, though, it would give one class a monopoly on thiefly activities.

I could make available a “graft” of the thief skills, at an XP cost. This seems ok, but just doesn’t feel right. I’m not crazy about the thief skill being this homogenous blob. I prefer the idea that a guy can be a first-rate lockpick and not know a damn thing about sneaking around.

lastly would be some method whereby players could select thief skills for their character, cafeteria-style, at some sort of premium, such as additional XP. The drawback to this option is that it starts straying into the murky area of a skill system, which I prefer to avoid.

Here’s an idea I had. I’m just spitballin’, but here it is. In Greyhawk, the majority of Thief skills are divided up into two broad categories: Open Locks/Remove Traps and Pick Pocket/move Silently/ Hide in Shadows. I propose that Fighters and Magic-Users (only) may opt at character creation to have certain Thief skills. The player may choose one group for his character to have. The choice must be made during character creation, and can not be changed. The character advances in those skills per Greyhawk. In return, the character must forfeit 15% of earned experience. Up to 10% of this may be offset by high Prime Requisites.

I’m not so sure I’m crazy about that either. But there it is. If anyone has an opinion on the matter, or that idea, I would love to hear it.

Ok, I just had another idea. This one can apply to pretty much anything, not just thief-like activities. Very simply, when the outcome of something is too variable to allow a player to simply describe his character’s actions, roll d20 and add the most appropriate stat. The referee will do likewise, high roll is successful. This can be used for anything from picking a lock (give it a rating to be added to the d20 roll), to sneaking past a guard, climbing a wall (d20 + rating based on surface and conditions), deciphering something written in a lost language, etc, etc.

I hate to sound like I’m patting myself on the back, but I really like this idea. It even takes class into account, in a way. If the referee allows players to place stats rather than rolling in order (which I do), then the best numbers will be allocated to the stats that are most relevant to the class. In other words, there’s no need to give Fighters a bonus on a physical roll because he will most likely have his best number in Strength anyway. If you want a guy that is above average in the thieving arts, just be sure and put one of your better numbers on DEX. If it means missing out on the Prime Requisite bonus, then that’s the cost of being a jack-of-all-trades. This should also play very fast at the table. All in all, I think I might be onto to something here.

C:ADD Half-Level

I was watching Spartacus: Blood and Sand over the weekend. I think my leveling scheme for warriors maps well to life in the arena, with one exception. First, a brief design note.

The leveling scheme is the way it is because of its source. There are essentially three levels in Chainmail, Normal, Hero, and Superhero. There are more for Magic-Users, but for now we're talking about warriors. The other reason is that I never want players to lose that thrill of danger, the feeling that any given combat against an equal foe could mean death. So, I wanted to keep HD kind of low, and not let bonuses get out of hand. I want the player to have to accept the fact that there are some creatures out there that they can not simply outlast while they methodical bash their heads in. Sometimes it will take strategy, guile, and a willingness to fight dirty.

Having said all that, and based on Spartacus, I think there should be something between Sellsword and Hero. Not a full on level, just some sort of bonus. Something that says "I've faced death". In the show, while the gladiators first arrive at the ludus and begin training, it is mostly raw talent that separates them. Once they've been christened in the blood of the arena, they are different.

Anyway, I came up with the notion of a "Half-Level". At 6,000 XP the warrior can choose to take +1 Combat or +1 Damage Die. This bonus is part of the one he gets at 2nd level. So, if a warrior takes +1 damage die, when he achieves 2nd level, his damage dice will increase by +2, to a total of +3.

Additionally, at 6,000 XP the warrior receives 2 Quality points. Like the above bonus, these 2 points are part of the four he normally receives when gaining a new level. So, when the warrior reaches 12,000 XP and makes 2nd level, he will only receive the remaining 2 Quality points.

It's really just a thought. I'm interested to hear what anyone thinks.