Unearthed Arcana Revisited

From Dragon Magazine, issue #59:

What follows is strictly for the AD&D game....

With plenty of labor and even more luck, there will be an ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS expansion volume next year. It will be for both players and DMs, with several new character classes, new weapons, scores of new spells, new magic items, etc. What will follow here in the next few issues is a sampling of the material slated for inclusion in the expansion.

E. Gary Gygax, March 1982

There would be no expansion volume in 1983. Nor in 1984. The "next book of monsters" (also mentioned in the article) which was to be released afterwards, instead appeared in 1983 under the title Monster Manual II. Presumably, being mainly a compilation of new monsters appearing in prior publications...especially TSR adventure modules...it was a much easier matter of transcribing existing creature entries in alphabetical order. 

Unearthed Arcana, the 'Book That Was Promised,' was finally published in the summer of 1985.

Pause for a minute. Why am I writing this? Just what is this all about?

Let's talk some straight talk for a moment:  as long time readers know, I got back to playing AD&D again in November of 2020. Since that time, I've introduced a lot of young 'uns to the game, written a lot of adventures, and spent a bunch of time spreading "the Good News" of the game (as I see it). However, in all that time...now entering my 5th year of 1E campaigning...I've limited my game to the only books I consider good and essential, namely the PHB, the DMG, and the various monstrous manuals (MM, FF, and MM2). The adventures I've written (approximately 6 or 7) have all carried the notation that I strongly recommend against using the rules in the Unearthed Arcana.  I haven't even cracked the UA in front of my kids; I've mentioned the book to Diego, but given only a cursory (and negative) overview of the tome to him. Neither of my kids know much...if anything!...about it, which should come as a surprise considering just how much lore they know of the history of the D&D game, its publications, and the various changes its seen over the decades.

[f.w.i.w.  my kids get curious about stuff and I tend to be a wind-bag of a talker]

Just why have I excised the Unearthed Arcana from my 1E table? It's not like I never used it...as I mentioned the first month I started this blog (!), we absolutely adored the UA, back in the day, and implemented every rule it had: Comeliness, traveling spell books, social standing and birth order, bronze armor, etc., etc. If it was in the UA, it was in our game. Chain lightning was a staple spell. Heward's Handy Haversack was a staple magic item...as were magic quarterstaffs (had to have something for all those thief-acrobats in our game). My brother ran multiple barbarian characters. We used weapon specialization; maybe even double specialization. There were Hierophant Druids. We replaced the unarmed combat system in the DMG with the simplified version found in the UA. I mean, we used it all.

So why have I not used it at all since returning to the King of Games, four years ago?

There is a stigma to the UA these days. The Grogtalk folks refer it as "The Book That Shall Not Be Named." Published in 1985 it is deep into the decadent years of TSR (post-Mentzer Basic, post-cartoon, post-DragonLance)...the years that led to the spiraling issues that would (eventually) cost Gygax his company. There is a commonly held belief that the Unearthed Arcana was solely cobbled together from past Dragon magazine articles in an effort to bring one more Gygaxian cash-cow to the table to save the company from debt. This idea is echoed in the Wikipedia article on the book:

The original Unearthed Arcana was written by Gary Gygax with design and editing contributions by Jeff Grubb and Kim Mohan, respectively, and published by TSR in 1985. Gygax reportedly produced the book to raise money as TSR was deeply in debt at the time. He announced in the March 1985 issue of Dragon magazine that Unearthed Arcana would be released in the summer of that year. He proposed the book as "an interim volume to expand the Dungeon Masters Guide and Players Handbook", as the information was spread out in several places and difficult to keep track of. Unearthed Arcana was to include material previously published in Dragon, written by Gygax and updated and revised for the book.

While the latter part of that quote is indeed from Gygax's own pen (in March of '85), the inference is clearly inaccurate...as stated at the beginning of this post Gygax had already planned on an expansion volume in 1982, and the articles he penned over the next many issues (which would compose the bulk of the UA) were written expressly for the book that was coming. This was not some sort of cash grab...THAT statement in the wikipedia article is accredited to a 2006 article in The Believer magazine, in which the author (Paul La Farge) asserts:

By 1984, the company was $1.5 million in debt, and the bank was ready to perfect its liens on TSR’s trademarks: in effect, to repossess Dungeons & Dragons. Gygax got word that the Blumes were trying to sell TSR, and he returned to Lake Geneva, where he persuaded the board of directors to fire Kevin Blume and published a new D&D rulebook to raise cash.

But La Farge's research is suspect. He notes in his footnotes that the book was Unearthed Arcana, a tome that "introduced the gnome race;" a gross misstatement (the gnome had been around since the 1978 PHB), done mainly, I believe, for effect (the gnome race was rather reviled by 2006, due to changes of characterization over the years). But I draw this conclusion because much of the article seems snarky and sensational.

While TSR was definitely facing financial difficulty due largely to mismanagement, it is a fact that Gygax had every intention of publishing Unearthed Arcana long before 1984. His time spent in California (which would result in three seasons of the Dungeons & Dragons cartoon...from '83-'85) was the main reason for any delay in publishing the projects that envisioned...and I believe that, and the personal issues he had during this time (his 1983 divorce and his new "Hollywood social life") contributed as much as anything to the declining quality of the products with his name on it post-1983.

But much, if not MOST, of the UA was created before 1983. Not only that, much of it was play-tested...if one is willing to believe the statements/updates given in Dragon magazine in 1982.

And so...perhaps this material is worthy of the game?

That's the conclusion that I am...slowly (and somewhat reluctantly)...beginning to come to. Why were the acrobat, barbarian, and cavalier featured in the D&D cartoon (first airing in September of 1983)? Because, they provided a good advertising vehicle for a planned book that had already published and tested said classes (the last one, the cavalier, being found in the April '83 issue of Dragon). I have no compunction with the feelings that the UA, as published, was somewhat rushed, slap-dash, and error-riven. But much of the stuff in the book...both its ideas and its mechanics/rules...were far less so. 

Rather, they were thoughtful or interesting...and worth a gander.

What took me down this particular rabbit hole? Well, a couple weeks ago I had this "great" idea of statting up the "D&D kids" for the 1E system. But while most every one of them is easy enough, Diana the acrobat was throwing me for a loop. And since I certainly didn't want to use the UA (because of the reputation the thing is currently carrying), I figured I'd 'go back to the source' and check out the original Dragon article that had been "ransacked" for Gygax's "company needed cash infusion." And what I found (in issue #69) was an article, pretty much word-for-word the same as in the UA, and written by Gygax himself (whereas, I had assumed most if not all the UA material had been culled from the work of other authors). There was also this introduction:

"This time, rather than reveal a new sub-class such as the Barbarian, I though the Enlightened Readership of this splendid vehicle might enjoy another concept. What you are about to read is the information so far developed pertaining to a split class. This a first. To my knowledge, such a possibility has not been expressed before in any similar game system. There is nothing similar to it in the AD&D game system although choosing to change from one profession to another is not too unlike the idea. Let us then get to the business at hand. I bring you, without further ado, the official new split-class for thieves."

"This time?" "The information so far developed?" "Official new split-class?"  This was not some highlight piece deemed to have enough traction for inclusion in a cash grab book...this is a sneak peak at mechanics already in development! By Gygax himself! In January of 1983!

I quickly found a copy of Gygax's "barbarian" from July of 1982 (issue #63); more information helped crystalie the picture:

"As usual, I am working on too many projects at once, and each gets a bit of attention but seems to never get done. At some point quite a few should suddenly be completed, and my productivity will seem great indeed. Meanwhile, I have dusted off the barbarian character class which the testers have enjoyed the most of the new classes I have proposed for the expansion of the AD&D rules. While the other classes seem to need more work, barbarians were instantly used and enjoyed by those eager for a change. Now you, Gentle Readers, have a chance to test the class for yourselves and see if you agree."

Okay, so...wow. This was a project in active development since at least 1982. It was being worked on in conjunction with other projects (in issue #59...March 1982...he details these as including the Monster Manual II, the never-would-be-released T2, The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun (WG4), and yet another adventure called "Wasp Nest -- The City State of Stoink" which I don't think I've ever heard of). It is being tested in play. It is to be part of an actual, planned expansion to the AD&D rules.

And what, exactly, was my problem with this rule set again? Re-reading the barbarian entry, I don't see anything terrible with it. Nothing over-powered, considering the x.p. cost...and while the magic item restrictions can be 'bought off' at higher levels (the levels where those restrictions can really matter), doing so negates many of the barbarian's special abilities. And above 8th level, a normal fighter will be going up TWO levels for every ONE of the barbarian. 

No looking back, my main issue with the barbarian appears to have been all the "world building" required to use the class effectively...and that's exactly what I like about it now, in my (more mature) elder years. This bit (from the UA):

Cavemen, dervishes, nomads, and tribesmen (see Monster Manual, "Men") are now considered barbarians.

...is, frankly, amazing. And says a LOT about how Gygax expected DMs to approach the AD&D campaign in their individual settings.  The standard classes are all a part of a civilization; and everything outside of that civilization are considered superstitious, magic-fearing savages. Political correctness be damned; in a post-apocalyptic fantasy setting, I kind of like this...a lot!  And it makes the humanoid tribes even MORE savage. Something to think about.

But...okay. The barbarian is cool. The thief-acrobat is cool. What about the other stuff: things like comeliness, weapon specialization, and the (*shudder*) cavalier class? 

Here's the thing: going through these Dragon magazines, issue-by-issue, it's clear that not al of the items that ended up included in the Unearthed Arcana were created equal. The new attribute Comeliness, which I detest immensely, was simply a rambling thought exercise by Gygax as part of an update/letter to the "Loyal Readers" regarding the state of the project (see issue #67). Weapon specialization, another poorly thought out concept, is simply mentioned in passing (after a larger section featuring new illusionist spells) as a conversation Gygax had with Len Lakofka with some hastily sketched out (and un-tested) rules, based on Len's unofficial "archer" class. There is no "double specialization" mentioned. 

[sorry, folks, I'm not a big Lakofka fan]

And the cavalier? It was not an off-the-cuff musing like some of these other articles. But it IS different from how it finally appears in the Unearthed Arcana. For one thing, the cavalier is a sub-class of fighter...as it should be!...a horseman specialist based on the chivalric knights of myth and legend.  It is, however, generally a mess, trying to shoehorn the half-baked weapon specialization rules with the theme-specific weapon restrictions, and focus on mounted (i.e. lance combat). Except that elven cavaliers (another concept I abhor) get archery specialization because...elves?  It's pretty dumb/bad, though perhaps not as terrible as the UA version which changed the nature of the paladin class, all for the bad.

However, Gygax admits the cavalier is only half baked; again this is April 1983 and life was pretty complicated (he'd just finalized an acrimonious divorce with his wife of 25 years in March); in his intro to the class he writes:

"As usual, your comments are invited. Input is most desirable, for what appears here is the basis -- not the final form -- of the sub-class. As is also usual, it is unlikely that comments sent to us will receive a direct reply -- there just isn't anyone on staff at this time to handle such work. While I am working to put together AD&D material, and Frank Mentzer is engaged in the revision and expansion of the D&D game system, the Industrious Staff of TSR are seekingpersonnel to fulfill the needs of you, the Understanding Readers. Thus, we should soon have the wherewithal to respond properly to all correspondence. Meanwhile, suffer along and accept my general thanks to all of you."

Sure, Gary. On to California.

So, the Unearthed Arcana is a mixed bag. New weapons, spells (perhaps), barbarian and acrobat classes? Good. Cavalier, comeliness, and weapon specialization? Frigging awful. Yes, the thing was rushed to production without adequate play-testing (or, even, proof-reading) probably because the company was strapped for cash to pay the bills. But this was a planned project, and much of it has Gygax's imagination and good design work imprinted in it. 

And, for me, that's enough to give the UA a second try. Not the whole book, mind you, but much of it. I will, of course, want to go through the old Dragon magazine articles and see which ones need pruning, which ones are unworkable, which ones were 'good enough' before other fingers stepped in to "help" get the book together. It isn't a big deal...something to amuse myself (culling these idea). And, hopefully, something to amuse my players.

[it is, perhaps unfortunate that I have altered the 1E magic system for my home game, as the plethora of new spells and the spell book rules (not to mention cantrips and apprentice MU mechanics) would be far more useful with "standard" 1E. But my system works too good to change it just to add a handful of beloved spells (like dismissal, chain lightning, and teleport without error). Well...we'll see. We'll see]

All right, that's enough for now. My expanded mind has been emptied, and I'll try to get some sleep. Signing off from Mexico!

; )

Just look at this geezer...

Subclasses, Variants, and Filters (P. 3)

[continued from here...]

So, yeah: filters. What is an appropriate filter? Something that requires players to make a choice. Setting requirements that ask the question, "what are you willing to PAY to play this character?" Or rather, "are you willing to give up X, Y, and Z to have this particular concept?"

The basic classes already do this:

• Cleric: will you give up edged (better damage) weapons for some miscellaneous/healing magic and some ability against the undead?
• Fighter: will you give up any other special abilities for the use of all arms and armor, good HPs, and the best attack matrix?
• Magic-User: will you give up all arms, armor, and combat fortitude for a chance to gain fantastic power over the long haul?
• Thief: will you give up being mighty in combat for some sneaky skills?

Part of the trade-off for the basic classes is also with regard to one's expected role in the party. The cleric often seems over-powered for its class advantages, whether in AD&D (with its D8 hit dice and attack-oriented spells) or B/X (especially when using the default D6 damage)...at least, when compared to the cleric's rate of level advancement. But the cleric's player is also being asked the additional question: "Are you willing to take on the role of healer and cooperative/assisting party member in exchange for all these bennies?" The cleric character is generally the most "put-upon" of any party member, followed by either the fighter (expected to be the front-line combatant) or the thief (expected to walk point and disarm poison needles). The damn magic-user gets a "free pass" in most parties (and then bitches loudly that he's got "nothing to do").

The choices for the basic classes are BASIC choices. They define the role the player wants to take in an adventuring party. With exceptional variant classes, classes that "one-up" other classes, it's not enough to require a basic choice...an appropriate filter requires an EXCEPTIONAL choice.

For example, let's look at the AD&D ranger class: XP costs are about 10% higher (reasonable for any variant, in my opinion) plus the arbitrary ability score restrictions. Other penalties for taking the class include the following:

- Only receiving D8s for hit dice (but they receive 2D8 at 1st level giving them a better average HP total than equal level fighters up until 6th level..and their HD go up to eleven, not just nine)

- Must be of good alignment

- May not have hirelings until 8th level

- No more than three rangers may ever operate together at any time (because otherwise the entire party would consist of rangers?)

- May only own the goods and treasure they can carry upon their person and mount

In exchange for which they receive the following bonuses: gradually increasing bonus damage to giant-class creatures with includes such "giants" as goblins and orcs; bonuses to surprise; bonuses to resist surprise; tracking ability; druidic spells beginning at 8th level; magic-user spells beginning at 9th level; ability to employ magical scrying devices at 10th level; attraction of 2-24 loyal (unpaid!) henchmen at 10th level...said henchmen generally consisting of exceptional adventuring types and monsters (including copper dragons and storm giants!).

You know, a copper dragon mount carries a lot of treasure.

Assuming you're playing AD&D 1E sans the weapon specialization rules of the UA (and even rangers are allowed some weapon specialization), what's the real trade-off here? That your character has to be chaotic good instead of chaotic neutral? Other than the "no more than three rangers can operate together" clause, I see no real reason why all the fighting men of a (cooperative) party would not want to play rangers. I don't recall any PCs in my old campaigns hoarding so much treasure they needed a war galley to store it in (and why do you think portable holes were invented anyway?).

No...the restrictions on an obviously exceptional class are restrictions, but they ain't particularly stringent. Not enough to act as the filter I'm talking about.

Filters should have the following characteristics:

- they should be performable even at low (1st) level, making the class open to dedicated players

- they should be based on role-playing and/or player choice, not random dice roll

- they should be appropriate to and emphasize the class concept

- they should be a pain in the ass

And that is a pain in the ass for the player that wants to play the concept, not a pain in the ass for the rest of the players in the group. Filters should involve sacrifice for the player that wants to play the exceptional class, not a sacrifice for the other players. For example, it would be inappropriate for an assassin requisite to be "must kill a friend or ally in cold blood," when that would generally entice the PC to murder a fellow PC or one of her fellow's henchmen. See how that's not cool?

So what are some appropriate filters? Well, unfortunately, they're kind of setting specific...of course,  variant classes themselves are setting specific (including paladins in your fantasy world says something very specific about that world)...but most DMs will have to decide how "tight" a filter is needed for his or her own campaign. I suppose I could give some suggestions...but this would just be spit-balling. 

[oh, well...when have I ever balked at voicing a half-baked idea?]

Much Maligned

The thief-acrobat subclass of thief is a problematic one for a variety of reasons: it requires PCs to obtain a certain level (6th), it has a bunch of fiddly feet/inches based skills, it's written poorly...and yet just about every thief in my old AD&D campaign would eventually switch over to the thief-acrobat route once they had the required levels under their belt. Why? Because their concept of a thief was more in-line with the daring cat-burglar than the skulking pick pocket...plus you get to keep all the "cool" skills (backstabbing, moving silently, etc.) and picking up all this acrobatic nonsense. My campaign was absolutely filthy with thief-acrobats...and no one ever had a problem making the ability pre-requisites.

[as an aside, by 6th level the clerics can detect traps and the magic-user can knock locks, so what's lost in making the transition? See...not much of a SUBclass]

Now, as said, the variant is still problematic because of its level restriction...but if you re-wrote the class to start at 1st level (HINT: subtract 5 from each number in the leftmost column of the Thief-Acrobat Function Table in the Unearthed Arcana), what filters might you put in place to prevent all your aspiring thieves from jumping into the T-A archetype?

How about ALL of the following requirements:

1. Character must pay all starting gold to her instructor; part of her "schooling" will include some basic tools of the trade (generally, climbing gear, some pouches, and her two formal weapons...no armor). Thereafter, she must give one-half (or more) of all treasure found to her instructor between adventures, at least for the first three to five levels...acrobatic training is rigorous, and on-going teaching necessary for an apprenticeship period.
2. Character is restricted to staff and lasso as her weapons at first level (these take her two proficiency slots)...both are tools as much as weapons, and it is necessary to be as accustomed to them as to her own limbs.
3. Character must demonstrate her dedication to the craft by performing (or attempting to perform) at least one feat of daring in each session during the apprentice period. Such a death defying act might be a solo wall scale or over-head hang or any use of the acrobatic skill function. Failure to at least make a single attempt results in NO EXPERIENCE being earned for the session. Likewise, there's no respite from this penalty should "no appropriate opportunity" be presented; in the acrobat's mind, such an adventure might be deemed a waste of time and training! Once the apprentice period is over (after the first three to five levels) such demonstrations are unnecessary for advancement, but should have become a routine part of the player character's gameplay.

I'm sure I could think up some other appropriate filters for the paladin class (most involving vows to a Church or temple and based on the knightly trials of chivalric literature) and the others...but, then, you folks can probably do that, too, right?

: )

Hope this gives people some food for thought!

No Acrobats Among Thieves

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

Acrobat (noun): 1. One skilled in feats of agility and balance. 2. One adept at quick changes of position.

Acrobatics (pl. noun): 1. The evolutions of an acrobat. 2. The art of an acrobat. 3. Any manifestation of spectacular agility.

Let’s start this discussion with an upfront statement of destination: the B/X Acrobat. No suspense, no mystery, that’s where we’re going with this post…we’re laying groundwork here. If you’re not interested in the destination, no need to read. If you just want the acrobat itself without the underlying reasoning, that’s cool…stay tuned for the follow-up post.

Okay, now to that foundation.

Let’s talk class (should I say, “Let’s muse about class?” A blog ain’t much of a dialogue after all). CLASS. What is a class?

A class is a CLASSIFICATION.

In the case of D&D, it is a classification of adventurer. Not all adventurers are scurrilous rogues, I think we can agree (a paladin or knight errant certainly goes on “adventures,” but hopefully he or she is the epitome of chivalry, grace, and heroic courage)…but a lot of them are. And being “roguish” isn’t of itself a class…that’s simply a descriptive of “adventurer.” You can have courageous adventurers, cunning adventurers, opportunistic adventurers, and yes, stupid and bumbling adventurers. Sometimes combinations of all these things! That’s just personality, or what I’ll call “flavor.”

An adventurer is itself a classification in the D&D world. Humans in the RPG realm are divided into “adventurers” and “non-adventurers.” Adventurers are ambitious, Type A personalities that explore the dangers of the world and learn from their experience, gaining prowess and skill through those experiences…prowess that makes them more alert (better saves), more dangerous (better attack rolls), and harder to kill (more hit points). Non-adventurers do not have adventures by choice (unless it is by choosing to follow an adventuring employer into doom!) and when they do, they do not learn from them (i.e. only adventuring-types gain XP).

All player characters are adventurers. That’s not up for discussion/debate. That’s what D&D is about: adventurers going on adventures. Regardless of how “soft” you are in real life, your character is a seeker of danger, risk, and reward. That’s what the game is about, at every level. If your character has a dominion or kingdom that he (or she) rules, you are STILL getting embroiled in adventures…if you are still playing the game with that character. If not, you’re RETIRED and you’re either starting a new adventurer or going off to play a different game.

Even that seldom pursued time-suck of “magical research” is adventurous. It’s built right into the game rules (characters are supposed to search out rare and dangerous ingredients) and the chance of failure carries its own risk/reward.

All right, have we got that all down? A dude who does nothing but manage his church (or his clan or his hideout/guild) is not an adventurer. For that matter, neither is someone who just tours with a circus or troupe of performers.

Right.

So adventurers are classified in Old School D&D NOT by their flavor or style (that’s just “flavor” and “style”), but by what they do…by the skills and abilities they bring to use on an adventure.

Fighters fight. That’s what they do. They are better at it than anybody else.

Magic-users use magic. That’s what they do. They’re better at it than anybody else.

Clerics care for the party’s spiritual well being…just kidding! No, no…they have an unfortunately less than descriptive class title, but they definitely are their own class: holy warriors, smiters of the undead, miracle-workers, blessed/touched by the gods (or God).

Thieves steal. That’s what they do. It’s why they’re called “thieves.” They are NOT lightly armored swashbucklers. They are not “expert spelunkers.” They pick pockets…because they’re thieves. They open locks…because they’re thieves. They climb walls (to burglarize places)…because they’re thieves. They have the “thief skills” they do BECAUSE they’re thieves.

And thieves are their own classification of adventurer. Their “skills” are what defines how they go about their adventuring profession. They are not great fighters. They are extremely poor at using magic. It’s doubtful they have any truck with the undead if they can help it (recall “Beni” in the 1999 film The Mummy? No matter which holy symbol he pulled out of his shirt, he wasn’t turning ANY walking corpse).

[which reminds me, The Mummy is actually a pretty good example of how D&D can be used in a modern setting, a la Chgowiz’s recent blog posts…Fraser’s character is, of course, a fighter, Beni and Jonathan are both thieves, Evie is a magic-user (1st or 2nd level with the spell Read Magic and perhaps Comprehend Languages), while the Mummy himself is of the Greater Undead variety with a whole suite of clerical powers. Nice!]

I don’t find anything “bad” about including the thieves in the game as a class, and I don’t think they prevent other characters from looking for traps (or attempting to circumvent them)...nor climbing walls, nor hearing noises…at least not in B/X play (Moldvay’s book provides all the rules one would want on this score). Thieves are just SKILLED at these activities. And why would a normal fighter be able to pick a lock anyway? I can’t pick a lock, and I’m a pretty resourceful guy myself!

Okay, everyone got my take on THAT? I don’t hate on thieves in D&D (well, only Halfling thieves)…I think more than a few folks may misunderstand just what the hell they are.

One thing thieves are NOT: they are not acrobats.

Thief-acrobats…man, is any class as maligned around the blog-o-sphere as the thief-acrobat? And why? Because they’re decidedly wimpy compared to the cavalier and barbarian beside whom they appeared in the 1985 Unearthed Arcana? Because they “broke the rules” like the bard (oh, and cavaliers didn’t?)? I will say this about the thief-acrobat…we must have seen nearly double digit thief-acrobats back in my mid-80s AD&D campaign, compared to exactly ONE cavalier (female Drow…barf!) and possibly TWO barbarians (both of which were played by my little brother).

Why the thief-acrobat? I think because people were tired of being skuzzy thieves. I mean, you still get to progress in all the cool “ninja-like” thief abilities (move silently, climb walls, hide in shadows, and backstabbing!) but no longer were you the designated trap guy (oh, I gave that up), or scroll reader (what, don’t we have a magic-user?), or pocket picker (hey, I gave up picking pockets after my FIRST thief was gutted by his own party members).

Personally, I think the thief-acrobat is just as gross and abusive as the cavalier or Unearthed Arcana paladin. It simply allowed people to play TV-style ninja and give up the entire thief shtick. And at no real loss to the party! After all a 6th level (AD&D) magic-user probably has Knock in the old spell repertoire and all (AD&D) clerics get Find Traps as a 2nd level spell…hey, take it with one of your bonus spells for having a higher than average wisdom.

In a way, I have to thank God for Dragon Lance and that f’ing Kender race…if not for styling our Halflings after the kender (much as WotC/D20/Paizo has), we wouldn’t have had ANY normal thieves in our gaming group, ONLY thief-acrobats (as it was we had at least a couple Halfling thief-acrobats…barf! As a DM I’m not ashamed to say that I did my best to kill off these little losers…and while I can’t say for sure, I believe my co-DM did the same!).

So, okay…let’s rein in the ranting a bit. I’m not a huge fan of “hybrid” classes, really. For example, you won’t see a “spell-sword” or “spell-thief” in any upcoming publication of mine (the Elf is the only B/X hybrid I’m prepared to tolerate). Yes, the Witch-Hunter has shades of both clerics and fighters, but their armor is lesser than any fighter, cleric, or AD&D fighter-cleric…and I hardly think their 8 total spells is even close to that of a “half-cleric.” Several of my new class write-ups have “thief skills” but none have more than four of the nine thief skills, and only one (the Mountebank) has the thief’s “backstabbing” ability.

Why am I doing this? To not step on the thief’s toes? To keep things as (B/X) simple as possible? Well, a little perhaps. But MAINLY, I want each class to be ITS OWN CLASS.

There are classifications…real adventuring professions…that are not represented by the OD&D/BX/LL archetypes. I know I’ve said this before. There is no “beastmaster” (a la Tarzan or Sheena). There is no Solomon Kane witch-hunter. There is no swashbuckling musketeer-type whose cunning sword-play is his best defense (no, the thief does NOT count as a “lightly armed fighter;” see above: the thief is a thief!). There is no archer/scout character.

You can say that existing classes can be adapted to the fill some of these roles…for example, a Halfling class seems to have all the special abilities needed for a Subotai-esque (that’s Conan the film, folks) character. But Subotai is no Halfling. And it’s a disservice to Hobbits to cut them just because one is too lazy to make an adequate human class, IMO.

So we come at last within spitting distance of our destination: the acrobat. Specifically, the B/X Acrobat. NOT the “thief-acrobat.” Not some back-stabbing ninja. But a freaking acrobat…"one skilled in feats of agility and balance.” An adventurer who engages in “manifestations of spectacular agility” and “the art of the acrobat.” Not a performer with a permanent circus engagement (any more than an adventuring fighter hires out as a body guard or a magic-user as a court magus), but someone with real skills, skills useful for an adventuring party…and with the ambition and Type A personality required to develop from experience, learning from their risk, reward, and dangerous encounters. An adventurer who is as much a thief as a cleric or magic-user or dwarf (that is to say, a liberator of loot as any adventurer might be, but certainly not a specialist in burglary and robbery).

The acrobat…welcome back!