Classless OD&D/New Class

[deathmetalmilf]

Hello! This is my first time posting on this forum, but I hope you enjoy!

So I've created one of two things (or both):

• D&D without classes
  and/or
• A new class.

The reason I phrase it like this is that this "class" can be played alongside other characters (e.g., Fighting-Men, Clerics, Magic-Users, etc.) or each player can play this character type themselves and just play them differently. The objective I had in mind when I created this was to make a form of OD&D that didn't give the player all of their equipment "proficiencies" at the start. I wanted to have a way to advance characters through both mundane/magical equipment and spells. Of course, the downside of this is that it does not allow for someone to play a character with a plethora of spells (like a high-level M-U). Of course, you will notice that there are 4 levels at which you can pick a mundane proficiency, and 4 levels at which you can pick a magical proficiency, but that there are 5 proficiencies you may pick for each category. It is designed this way in order to make more unique "builds" of characters. This system is also assumed to have some sort of house rules about weapon damage, so that weapons like Warhammers deal more damage than Daggers, but it can work well with the normal D6 damage. Additionally, you will notice that one could potentially wield a magical sword before they are able to wield a regular sword. This is intentional.

Well, enough chatter. Here it is:

Level    XP          HD
1          0           1+1

2         2,000       2

3         4,000      3+1

4         8,000       4

5         16,000     5+1

6         32,000      6

7         64,000     7+1

8         120,000      8

9         240,000    9+1



Starting at 1st level, the character is proficient with leather armor and the dagger.

Each even level after 1st, the player may pick a weapon, armor, or item proficiency.
A
proficiency denotes that the character may use that item without restriction.
Mundane Proficiencies Available to be Selected:

Heavy Armor (chainmail and platemail)

Shield

One-Handed Weapons

Two-Handed Weapons

Ranged Weapons


At every odd numbered level (starting at level 3), the player may pick 2 spells or a
category
of magic items* which they can use.
Magical Proficiencies Available to be Selected:

Any 2 Clerical or Magic-User spell of the character's level or lower

Magic Armor & Shields

Magic Weapons (not magic swords)

Magic Swords

Staves & Wands


*It is assumed that the character can use any potions, rings, scrolls, or other
miscellaneous magical items.

Thoughts? Criticism? Praise? Questions?

[Finarvyn]

An interesting idea, and one that reminds me somehow of a cross between OD&D (class based) and RuneQuest (skill based) in that potentially everyone could play a character that customizes instead of having to specialize.

[Punkrabbitt]

My first thought was Runequest as well, in that everyone has access to low level magic if they want it. How would this system/class apply to elves and/or ducks?

[deathmetalmilf]

Aug 6, 2015 10:19:27 GMT -6 Punkrabbitt said:

My first thought was Runequest as well, in that everyone has access to low level magic if they want it. How would this system/class apply to elves and/or ducks?

Hah! Actually, I did sorta draw on Runequest. It was my first RPG *cries a single tear of nostalgia*. But I digress. I was thinking that Elves and other races would have a more modern approach, such as a bonus to certain abilities, or different starting proficiencies.

[Deleted]

So, at first level my character dons his leather armor and sheaths his daggers (he noted he can wield daggers so he stocked up on them at the quartermaster's). Assuming OD&D rules, even with house-ruled variable weapon damage, he may still wield them as a zero-th level "man-at-arms" and thus fight as a 1st level fighter. Daggers are handy as both melee and missile weapons so he doesn't care he is unable to equip standard missile weapons. Daggers are cheap and relatively easy to obtain for nothing in the dungeon. In addition, many house-rules adding variable weapon damage allow an attack bonus for lighter weapons and even more than one attack for same.

At second level, he decides he is too thin-skinned and opts for heavy armor, using the surfeit of gold yielded by successful dungeon delving to purchase plate. He is now AC3.

At 3rd level he decides throwing daggers is too rococo and adds magic attacks to his growing arsenal. Since he is 3rd level he is allowed access to both first and second level magic-user spells (as I understand your proposed rules). He chooses charm person and sleep.

We now have an plate-mail clad spell-caster he is only 1 spell behind magic-user in daily casting ability but a much tougher armor class and more HD/hp. Plus, he can wield both melee and missile weapons. Granted, he has limitations such as being quite limited in both spell selection and weapon choices but overall a viable character.

He'll need to play as cautiously as a magic-user at first level, though he's tougher than one in terms of hp and AC, and would certainly need to be cognizant of his added abilities going forward. This specific expression of your method would surely be able to stand at the front line upon reaching second level.

Question: how would he advance in fighting ability? Every 3 levels like a fighter? Every 4 like a cleric? Or every 5 like a magic-user?

Question: how about saving throws?

Observation: hit dice seem a bit high for a non-fighter class (meaning a class not living and dying by their dedication to the combat arts).

Conclusion: this will work as written but IMO it will likely make the traditional classes less desirable. Obviously if this is your aim then this is an expedient result.

Conclusion: It may further lead to an arms race of "optimal character builds." If this isn't an issue for your gaming style then I say run with what you have in play-tests and see how it works!

Good job!

[deathmetalmilf]

Thanks for the pointers, Cameron. Is suppose my thinking behind the proficiencies was that I always valued the "coolness factor" of D&D. For example, the leather armor and dagger are really all you need for most builds. But, how cool is it that you can (even if they do the same damage or have similar ranges) wield a kick-a** Crossbow, rather than just throwing a knife? The 12-year-old in me loves that feature. Additionally, I figured the character would save and attack as a normal Fighting-Man, and the hit dice are just so that some Goblin that comes out of nowhere won't have a 1 in 6 chance of killing the character in one hit, but I suppose that's just part of the magic of OD&D. So, it's not mechanically perfect (or even all that good), but I've run it a few times and it was a blast. Thanks!

[cooper]

Allow me to play guardian angel to your devil's advocate

Aug 6, 2015 10:58:24 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

Daggers are handy as both melee and missile weapons so he doesn't care he is unable to equip standard missile weapons.

This is actually not allowed. CHAINMAIL specifically only allows throwing axes and spears as melee weapons that can also be thrown. Being able to "throw" a dagger (roman pugio or Knights dagger) is historically inaccurate and up there with wearing swords in sheaths on your back. Also, I think, if people really think about it, it is going against the intent of the rules for magic users to have some form of ranged attack outside of spells. The whole "wizard with a bandolier of daggers" is not an image I want to associate with scholars and lore masters.

Daggers are cheap and relatively easy to obtain for nothing in the dungeon.

I don't know why this is assumed. Certainly no published module makes this seem to be the case over any other weapons. Even if this is so, I don't see how it matters. 2gp gets you a dagger in town and you only need one.

We now have an plate-mail clad spell-caster he is only 1 spell behind magic-user in daily casting ability but a much tougher armor class and more HD/hp. Plus, he can wield both melee and missile weapons.

As I showed above, he cannot wield missile weapons.

[He'll need to play as cautiously as a magic-user at first level, though he's tougher than one in terms of hp and AC, and would certainly need to be cognizant of his added abilities going forward. This specific expression of your method would surely be able to stand at the front line upon reaching second level.

If following treasure charts and not artificially playing a "low magic" campaign (as I know many do) the 3rd level mu should have a few scrolls at least and if he's lucky even a wand, which grants him some level of parity.


The real question is how does this stack up to an elf who begins with 1+1 HD and 1 spell and can wield all magic armor and weapons and staves and scrolls already.

[Deleted]

Aug 6, 2015 12:59:44 GMT -6 cooper said:

Allow me to play guardian angel to your devil's advocate

I was not attempting to play devil's advocate as you put. I thought the original poster was asking for opinions. I offered mine. My apologies if it came across as anything else. I was merely taking an idea the basic class gave me and seeing how it may play out with the proposed class. I wasn't trying break anything. In point of fact, I found his offering to be pretty well thought out. I thought my closing comment of "good job" made that plain.

This is actually not allowed.

Cite please? I can recall no rule stating it can't be done.

Also, I think, if people really think about it, it is going against the intent of the rules for magic users to have some form of ranged attack outside of spells.

The rules don't state that and I disagree it's an obvious implication ... or even an implication at all. I can certainly see, given your proclivity toward Chainmail and exhaustive exegesis (if I may), how you arrived at your opinion.

I don't know why this is assumed.

From 40 years of playing the game. Common weapons in my experience are pretty easy to come by and after a battle or two party members are usually armed about as well as they'd like to be.

Certainly no published module makes this seem to be the case over any other weapons.

I don't recall making the statement this was so. (shrug) At any rate, not a factor for me because I rarely use commercial modules.

Even if this is so, I don't see how it matters.

Well, as I was offering my opinions based upon how I played the game to the original poster and not to the way every single gamer everywhere runs his campaign, I think your "seeing" how it matters is inconsequential.

As I showed above, he cannot wield missile weapons.

You did a fine job of stating your opinion, yes. I fail to see how my take on it was refuted.

If following treasure charts and not artificially playing a "low magic" campaign (as I know many do) the 3rd level mu should have a few scrolls at least and if he's lucky even a wand, which grants him some level of parity.

I don't disagree with your opinion but were I playing a magic-using character? If I were offered the choice of a few scrolls and a wand or the ability to wear plate I know which I'd take. But yes, both are viable characters. I never stated either wouldn't be.

The real question is how does this stack up to an elf who begins with 1+1 HD and 1 spell and can wield all magic armor and weapons and staves and scrolls already.

It isn't the real question to me. I doubt a first level elf would have magical armor but, even if he did, I'm not sure he would be a better or worse alternative. Certainly a different one. As with everything else your mileage may vary.

As a final note? If my post or this reply gives you any offense let me know and I'll STFU immediately. I love the game but I don't like bandying words with people and I'm trying not to stir up this increasingly prickly board. So ... let me know if I'm hurting your feelings. I'll be happy to stop talking and even delete my posts so they aren't bugging you.

[Deleted]

Aug 6, 2015 11:16:48 GMT -6 deathmetalmilf said:

Thanks for the pointers, Cameron. Is suppose my thinking behind the proficiencies was that I always valued the "coolness factor" of D&D. For example, the leather armor and dagger are really all you need for most builds. But, how cool is it that you can (even if they do the same damage or have similar ranges) wield a kick-a** Crossbow, rather than just throwing a knife? The 12-year-old in me loves that feature. Additionally, I figured the character would save and attack as a normal Fighting-Man, and the hit dice are just so that some Goblin that comes out of nowhere won't have a 1 in 6 chance of killing the character in one hit, but I suppose that's just part of the magic of OD&D. So, it's not mechanically perfect (or even all that good), but I've run it a few times and it was a blast. Thanks!

Hey, my pleasure fellow gamer. I think you've come up with a solid concept here. Do, please, let us know how it works out for you in play.

I'm interested in how the class itself works and what, if any, alterations to basic game-play you might need to make. Good luck!

[cooper]

All the missile fire rules in 0d&d are explained in CHAINMAIL, from elves split move and fire, to ranges of bows to how many shots per round and the reason missile weapons cannot be used during melee. Throwing daggers exists only in ad&d.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Deleted]

Aug 6, 2015 14:20:23 GMT -6 cooper said:

All the missile fire rules in 0d&d are explained in CHAINMAIL, from elves split move and fire, to ranges of bows to how many shots per round and the reason missile weapons cannot be used during melee. Throwing daggers exists only in ad&d.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Referee: the orc is closing fast. You have initiative.
Player: I hurl my dagger!
Referee: you hit him! Down he goes ...

Yep! They definitely existed in my OD&D campaign in the mid-1970's!

We just look at the rules differently, Cooper. I don't need a rule telling me something can or cannot be done. If it makes sense and works within the established "way things work in my campaign"? I allow it (or disallow it as the case mya be). I don't recall ever having a referee (or later a DM) telling me one my PC's couldn't throw a dagger. Chainmail is a fine reference and I certainly value your opinion but CM is no more authoritative IMC than anything else.

[cooper]

Of course. But what you describe can be done with a sword or mace as well (with just as much historical accuracy and just as much legitimacy in the rules) "I hurl my sword!" and that's fine improvising, but the OP can't very well design a light 0d&d style class that covers all the improvised rules players will come up with.

[Deleted]

Aug 6, 2015 14:33:39 GMT -6 cooper said:

Of course. But what you describe can be done with a sword or mace as well (with just as much historical accuracy and just as much legitimacy in the rules) "I hurl my sword!" and that's fine improvising, but the OP can't very well design a light 0d&d style class that covers all the improvised rules players will come up with.

I would allow the use of a mace or sword as a thrown weapon, sure. Of course, their size and lack of balance would factor in to any chance of hitting. Far easier to carry 3 daggers (for instance) to have 2 for throwing and 1 for fighting than 3 maces. Plus magic-users were allowed (by the rules) to carry daggers so they usually carried more than 1 IMC (though I'll confess I allowed them to use staves as well). So giving the rules and equipment listed it seemed the dagger was a natural fit for both throwing and fighting.

As I've said, it seemed to my teen-aged self a logical extrapolation of the existing rules. I can see your viewpoint and I believe it just as valid as mine ... I just liked my way better (both then and now).

Thank you for the exchange of ideas and, as always, I look forward to any further thoughts on the matter you may have.

[Deleted]

To deathmetalmilf ... sorry for derailing your thread, man. If you'd like I can ask the mods to "fork" the discussion.

[deathmetalmilf]

It's cool, don't worry about it. Thanks for the offer though.

[cooper]

I think part of the problem I have with the thinking that it is easier to throw daggers, or that daggers make good throwing weapons at all, is that I separate, very clearly, modern throwing daggers and the 6"-15" miniature swords which we call "daggers" which were used in antiquity. A simple rock is a much more effective missile weapon than any medieval dagger (you don't have to hope the pointy end goes in first with a rock for starters).

throwing modern specialized throwing daggers is also a very trained skill, again, which goes against the mu trope of only using daggers (ceremonial occult tools) and staves (ditto).

While historical throwing axes exist there is no historical precedent for throwing daggers. It's a movie trope, which is fine of course if one is playing that sort of styled game.

[Deleted]

Aug 6, 2015 14:50:44 GMT -6 cooper said:

I think part of the problem I have with the thinking that it is easier to throw daggers, or that daggers make good throwing weapons at all, is that I separate, very clearly, modern throwing daggers and the up to 15" miniature swords which we call "daggers". A simple rock is a much more effective missile weapon than any medieval dagger (you don't have to hope the pointy end goes in first with a rock).

throwing modern specialized throwing daggers is also a very trained skill, again, which goes against the mu trope of only using daggers (ceremonial occult tools) and staves (ditto).

I'll cede your basic point here. The first time I saw a medieval dagger that was my first question! "How would a fellow throw something like that?" It was almost a very short sword as opposed to a more modern dagger design.

Unfortunately my 18 year old self didn't know that and in they went. When later editions came out with the same idea of throwing daggers (I believe it was also in B/X) I figured I'd made a good ruling until the moment came I referred to above. Still, there are many inconsistencies with my campaign world and medieval Europe so I must admit I'm not busted up about it. There are numerous areas where the game rules are obviously to serve the game and not a simulation of the real world that having one more relatively minor (to my way of thinking) inconsistency between the two doesn't bother me.

[Finarvyn]

Brings thread back to topic...

Aug 6, 2015 10:58:24 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

Conclusion: this will work as written but IMO it will likely make the traditional classes less desirable. Obviously if this is your aim then this is an expedient result.

I think that this was the point, or at least that's the way I interpreted it. Everyone would play this "class" (as per RQ) instead of having some folks specialize and others not. In effect, everyone would be a multi-class character.

The traditonal classes might make for EZ NPC creation, but the assumption would be that everyone would be a jack-of-all-trades character who can customize as appropriate.

As to limitations built into to the model, in RQ you develop skills and some of those skills are spellcasting. I assume that similar choices would need to happen along the way. Perhaps at each level the caster could choose to advance in spells or weaponry, which might translate into gaining a "level" in MU versus a "level" in FM. Just thinking out loud.

[deathmetalmilf]

Yes! Finarvyn, that was exactly what I was going for. Thank you.

[Deleted]

Aug 7, 2015 4:50:16 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Brings thread back to topic...

I think that this was the point, or at least that's the way I interpreted it. Everyone would play this "class" (as per RQ) instead of having some folks specialize and others not. In effect, everyone would be a multi-class character.

I thought that may be the case but I wasn't certain from my reading of the original post.

Thanks for setting me straight and my apologies for both the thread-jack and stirring up the board again. It's been a while since I've posted here and now I'm recalling why. Folks seem to find my opinions threatening. Perhaps it's my writing voice. I work in the medical field and this has instilled a rather dry and distant "voice" in my words. If I'm not careful it tends to creep into all my communications.

I'll take another leave of absence and, it is to be hoped, everyone settles down a bit. Until then? I apologize to you and anyone else I may have offended. Such were not my intentions but, as the saying goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions! Take care fellow gamer.

[deathmetalmilf]

Hats off to you, good sir. No offense was taken, and I always appreciate constructive input, no matter the flavor.

[Deleted]

Serious question... why not just play RUNEQUEST instead of trying to turn OD&D into Runequest?

[Punkrabbitt]

Runequest is degrees of complexity more advanced than OD&D; when I decided to RPG with la familia again, I *wanted* to play Runequest, but realized that they would be lost just in character creation. OD&D is so much easier to learn and play!

[Porphyre]

Doesn't Chaosium Basic answer to the need of a "lighter" version of RQ ?

[deathmetalmilf]

Aug 8, 2015 10:38:16 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Serious question... why not just play RUNEQUEST instead of trying to turn OD&D into Runequest?

Well, in all honesty, similar to what Punkrabbit said, things like character creation in Runequest can be a long and confusing process, as it can be a complex game. You have said yourself that OD&D is so great because it is so simple (something with which I agree). I wanted to try OD&D as a more flexible game (like RQ) but with fewer confusing rules, and still trying to keep some sort of D&D "feel."

[Deleted]

Okay, so how about The Fantasy Trip? 3 stats, STR, DEX, and IQ, and you have 35 points. Ready, set go.

Then pick skills, so you can indeed be a plate armor wearing sword using spell thrower.

[Punkrabbitt]

One of the reasons *I* like to force, bash, slide, or jam new ideas into any flavor of early D&D is because I know how to do it. I have been pl0aying D&D of every flavor except 5th since 1979, and I can pretty much balance any crazy idea I have into the game without breaking a sweat. I think this topic presents a great way of doing things for a different kind of D&D campaign.

[deathmetalmilf]

Aug 10, 2015 22:44:19 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Okay, so how about The Fantasy Trip? 3 stats, STR, DEX, and IQ, and you have 35 points. Ready, set go.

Then pick skills, so you can indeed be a plate armor wearing sword using spell thrower.

I guess TFT doesn't have the same feel as OD&D (I know I've been talking about feel a lot), but that might just sound silly. D&D holds more meaning to me, and I appreciate the small amount of intricacies that OD&D comes with.

[Punkrabbitt]

Ok, so my older daughter has been too busy with marching band and school to play much D&D, so I am going to try running it with just my younger daughter.

If she wants to re-roll, we are going to try this class out.

[Finarvyn]

Aug 11, 2015 11:31:21 GMT -6 deathmetalmilf said:

Aug 10, 2015 22:44:19 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Okay, so how about The Fantasy Trip? 3 stats, STR, DEX, and IQ, and you have 35 points. Ready, set go.

Then pick skills, so you can indeed be a plate armor wearing sword using spell thrower.

I guess TFT doesn't have the same feel as OD&D (I know I've been talking about feel a lot), but that might just sound silly. D&D holds more meaning to me, and I appreciate the small amount of intricacies that OD&D comes with.

You, sir, are the caller of the show. (Talk radio reference.) Or, at least you've said exactly the same thing that I was going to say. I've played RQ, TFT, some of the microlite games, other "simplified" versions of D&D, and none of them have the feel of OD&D. Maybe it's the nostalgia, maybe it's the little brown booklet format, maybe it's the musty smell of my little brown booklets ... but OD&D is a thing different from and more special than any other RPG that I've played. I may tweak OD&D and try some different rules out in my campaings, but the feel of the original OD&D always draws me back.