Races, Classes, Backgrounds, and Special Abilities in OD&D

[cadriel]

I've had this idea rumbling about in my head that sort of synthesizes a handful of ideas in OD&D.

First: you have the races in Men & Magic, specifically Dwarves and Halflings, that take the Fighting-Man and add certain abilities to it. These take a severe level cap as a disadvantage.

Second: you have the Paladin in Greyhawk. This is also a Fighting-Man, but with special abilities and restrictions. It also has a massive Charisma requirement; very few Paladins exist if you roll 3d6 in order.

Third: you have the old school idea of tables of Special Abilities proposed by various groups, usually in California, such as those seen in early issues of Alarums & Excursions or the first Arduin Grimoire.

Fourth: you have this article full of backgrounds for human characters that Zach at the Zenopus Archives whipped up back when 5e came out.

It seems to me that OD&D could work pretty well if this system was extrapolated out further and made into a single "Background" system. I'm specifically thinking it would work well for a game where PCs were all fighting-men or magic-users. Clerics could be abstracted out of the game, and a couple of Backgrounds (one a Monster Hunter that turns undead, the other a Healer) could move its functions into that system. Other "races" could just be different Backgrounds, monster PCs would be a Background that granted a special ability, etc. It adds a level of customization to the character without adding much complexity to the system.

I'm also pondering to what degree the California-style special abilities (like bonuses to certain weapons, saves versus certain things, affinity to dragons or elves, etc) would factor into such a system.

Anyway, I'm curious what folks think. Have you tinkered with ideas like this? Ideas or examples of other things that fit well?

[Punkrabbitt]

I haven't tinkered with this, but I think it's a fair shot, especially for non-human characters. And not necessarily just "Elf: gain xx abilities" but a whole table of elf backgrounds (or dwarf, or hobbit, or obscure bat people, or whatever.)

[talysman]

I've talked a bit about something like this. Even have a PDF detailing a simple background/ability system. Short version, for those who don't want to download the one-page PDF: characters can pick up loosely-defined skills either at character creation (by just buying gear that requires that skill) or later through training, without the need for "skill slots" or a "proficiency system". Characters trained in a skill perform tasks faster and are less likely to require a roll to succeed. Optionally, players can list past professions or life events as backgrounds that give them trained status when using skills or cultural knowledge related to those backgrounds. Characters can also use the years of experience in a background as a substitute for an ability score, where relevant. This allows players to build a "ranger class" by just playing a Fighter with a "woodsman" or "hunter" background, or a "bard class" by playing a fighter or thief with a "bard" background.

It's more or less just the "secondary skills" system from AD&D with a loose set of rules defining how to use them. I went this route because formal skill systems and ability (feat or advantage) systems always seem to suck, and wind up being limited, anyways. A simple open-ended framework for improvisation seemed like a better approach. I know it has less appeal for people who like strict character building systems or those who want abilities to do more. But I wanted something really low-end and infinitely expandable that I felt fit better with OD&D.

At some point, I was planning on expanding this to allow training in other abilities closer to what you call "California" abilities, probably by giving abilities a "spell level" rating and treating it as magical research. I even had some ideas about designing new classes, if necessary, or picking up partial training in a different class. But I haven't fully decided where to draw the boundaries. I really don't like abilities that give plusses or emulate spells, so I didn't want to stray too far in that direction. But how far is too far? Haven't decided yet.

[tdenmark]

Adding backgrounds and abilities to OD&D characters is a great idea. As it is characters are a bit similar and could use some options for variability. Level caps have to go though, I don't think they are a useful game mechanic. 5e goes way too far in unnecessarily complicating backgrounds, I think a streamlined version would be much better.

[Anathemata]

I think backgrounds are one of the best ideas 5e has (although I agree with thomden that they are muddled, containing rp elements and mechanics I find unnecessary). The idea of a separate template to slap on to a class/race combo is a better idea to me than bolting on a universal skills system. It does away with the need for prestige classes or subclasses or variant classes, and gives the old-school DM a pretty easy way to handwave what a character would and wouldn't be good at, knowledgeable of, etc. while providing a neat framework for providing little mechanical bonuses, not to mention setting flavor. I like how Zenopus even allowed for a kind of race-as-background, with the Orcish option available in his version.

I've been using backgrounds for a while, but they are pretty simple. Just write down an occupation with an adjective, such as "exiled noble" or "alcoholic sailor." This gives me a nice one-two punch of what to know about your character, which usually translates to Advantage on certain rolls. I also allow a single "Background Point" per session, which a character can spend to give them a background-related twist in a story, such as "I know her from my days at court" or "I learned about that legend once on a voyage to a foreign land." I haven't managed anything more mechanically complex than that.

[Anathemata]

tenfootpolemic.blogspot.com/2014/01/200-failed-medieval-careers.html

Here's another approach. I've been thinking about this a lot since it was brought up. Another way to go about looking at backgrounds is to look at them as "what characters failed at before becoming adventurers," which is what the excellent d200 list at this excellent blog gives.

It would be easy to convert the examples given here to a set of simple bonuses, or ad hoc modifiers, or whatnot. One of the great things about this approach is that it provides character FLAVOR, but doesn't have to dominate what the player does at the table or assume that their background is an integral part of some "character arc."

[Deleted]

This list of failed careers is very cool, and a nice idea.

I've run a game some time ago where I've asked the players to choose a career on the Warhammer Fantasy 1e, found this suggestion on Youtube and decided to try it, I've said to them to ignore everything except the concept/description and the illustration since we were playing OD&D and not using those stats and skills, my players enjoyed a lot, one of them chose to be a Boatman! How cool is that?

[Red Baron]

I like the idea, as long as the backgrounds are small enough to primarily be fluff rather than large mechanical advantages. I would also limit them to fighting-men as magic-users can "fluff" themselves through spell choice.

You also have to draw the line between what counts as a "background" vs what counts as a "class". For example, is a ranger a background or a class? I think human races/cultures work well as "backgrounds", whereas adventuring roles are a "class. For example, a samurai seems like a background and not a class - I would give them a +1 to hit with two handed swords. That's a very constrained ability bonus that is only marginally useful in certain situations and isn't necessarily even better than using a shield which every fighting man can do. But it makes them cool and has a lot of flavor.

Here are a few ideas I had for backgrounds for fighting-men:

Citizen
+1 to all reaction rolls in towns and cities.

Nomad
Additional language: Nomad.
10% better prices on horses.
Fire any missile at +1.

Northman
Additional language: Northman.
+10% to all naval engagement rolls.
+33% oared movement fatigue factors.

Gladiator
+1 to hit adjustment when fighting with two weapons.
+1 to hit adjustment when fighting large animals.

[bobjester0e]

The first edition of Warhammer Fantasy Role Play had a career system for PCs. You pick a class (Ranger, Academic, etc) and then roll randomly for a career within that class, and get a series of bonuses to an attribute or additional skill that you purchase for 100 XP each.

Once one or more are taken, you are allowed to Exit that career into another one, with a similar set up.

Characters level up in class, but can move frequently between careers. Careers allow characters to gain a bonus or skill, some magic use, even equipment.

[hamurai]

cadriel, why would you leave out the cleric and make their abilities available to everyone? Setting choice or game mechanics?

I usually use AD&D's Secondary Skills - a background concept will be enough to determine the success chances of most situations.

I've also used Dungeon Crawl Classics' skill system, where you get a random profession (farmer, scribe...) and when (if - I'd rather rely on common sense and player descriptions) it comes to a skill check, you either roll 1d20 for a skill based on your profession, or 1d10 if it's outside of your profession. If it's a middle thing, 1d10+2 is suggested. (In DCC, B/X-like attribute modifiers are added to the roll). The difficulty in my games was assessed by rolling a die: 1d4 for easy tasks (if rolled at all), 1d6 for average tasks, 1d10 for a challenge, 2d10 for a tough challenge.

[bobjester0e]

Using different dice to determine skill task success is underrated.