Optional classes for Delving Deeper

[ravenheart87]

This thread is not for 3LBB purists.


I’m planning to revamp the some optional classes from Supplement I-III and Strategic Review for Delving Deeper. My goal is to be faithful to the originals, not to simply copy them, so I might change a few bits here and there. I’d like to ask my fellow DD fans, that what problems do they have with the following classes: paladin, ranger, assassin, monk, druid, bard.


Things I’m planning to change so far:

Paladin: I’m going to weaken the special mount. I’m considering adding anti-paladins á la anti-clerics - their touch would cause damage or disease instead of healing it, they would be able to detect and dispel lawful creatures, instead of chaotic.

Ranger: No extra Hit Dice on first level. I’m going to drop the XP chart and the XP bonus they get. Tracking is going work like thief skills and non-ranger characters can use it too with smaller chance. I might change some restrictions and magic use too.

Assassin: They are going to be able to use thief skills on the first level, but for success they have to roll 4-6. Disguise is going to work the same way. I might write up some example poisons and increase their Hit Points.

Monk: Their martial arts abilities (unarmed damage, attack bonus) are going to be held back. Thief skills will work on 4-6. Their list of abilities is a bit chaotic, it needs some overhaul.

Druid: I’ll drop the fire resistance - did anyone ever care about that or even notice it? Their spell list is going to be either unique with some “new” spells or a combined magic-user and cleric spell list as mentioned in Supplement I’s monster chapter. I’ll possibly change other abilities too.

Bard: They are going to need 2000 XP for 2nd level. Lore and charm is going to work like thief skills - which bards can use with a 4-6 chance.


I’m planning to add other classes too:

Samurai: Fighters with special weapons, the ability of critical strike and cleave. Their katana is very important and harakiri is not unknown among them.

Ninja: A combination of monk and thief. I might drop assassin in favour of the ninja, since thieves already cover everything assassins need. They are going to advance slowly.

Archeologist: Lore skill, thief skills, good at detecting traps and secret doors, bit tougher than thieves, can use pistols, whips, must wear fedoras when possible.

[Sean Michael Kelly]

My son has already requested I "retro-fit" a minotaur race/class for Delving Deeper. :-)

He's such a bull head.

[waysoftheearth]

Sept 20, 2012 7:00:49 GMT -6 Sean Michael Kelly said:

My son has already requested I "retro-fit" a minotaur race/class for Delving Deeper. :-)

He's such a bull head.

Please write it up for us when you do ;D

[ravenheart87]

Sept 20, 2012 7:00:49 GMT -6 Sean Michael Kelly said:

My son has already requested I "retro-fit" a minotaur race/class for Delving Deeper. :-)

He's such a bull head.

I have no big plans for races... Just adding orcs, lizardmen, insectoids, etc...

[waysoftheearth]

Looks like fun Raven -- I love that you've kept them super brief

Let us know how they go... and which ones your players decide to favour.

[Sean Michael Kelly]

Simon, I'll def be doing a brief write-up, I don't see too much variance from a fighter, maybe enhanced strength, enhanced navigational ability, a few limits to armor, eyesight, etc... We'll see. I did a much more extensive one for LL that I *think* will be in the next issue of Fight On.

[bestialwarlust]

I'll be interested to see what you come up with. For the paladin I use it almost as is...the original prestige class. It's just a lawful fighter and I base it off this

jrients.blogspot.com/2011/01/paladins-of-wessex.html

To me the ranger is just a fighter with wilderness skill so I won't have a separate class for ranger. They won't have spells I'm not sure why the class was given spells in the first place.

[ravenheart87]

I'll keep you updated. I'm considering converting my AD&D 1e campaign to DD, since it's so much easier to tinker with the latter. And honestly, I like tinkering, taking elements from other games, from Nethack to Arduin.

[llenlleawg]

Sept 20, 2012 6:57:20 GMT -6 ravenheart87 said:

Paladin: I’m going to weaken the special mount. I’m considering adding anti-paladins á la anti-clerics - their touch would cause damage or disease instead of healing it, they would be able to detect and dispel lawful creatures, instead of chaotic.

Honestly, rather than weakening the mount, consider ditching it altogether. If a given ref wants an adventure in which a paladin quests to receive a special mount, then more power to him. However, mounts are not generally helpful in most adventuring, save from getting from point A to point B.

I'm not so sure about the anti-paladin approach either. Causing damage or disease is fine, although it's harder to imagine a "real world" (i.e. in folklore or fantasy) echo of an armored warrior whose touch causes disease (whereas the Biblical laying on of hands and the "king's touch" curing disease is). That's just a matter of preference, however. More problematic is the turning of Lawful creatures. That didn't enter the game until AD&D, when evil clerics of sufficient level could turn paladins. Given that anti-clerics as such cannot affect the undead at all, I would think that the anti-paladin would have no equivalent power to "balance out" the paladin's power to dispel evil. As an alternative, instead of detecting and dispelling evil, and even perhaps instead of causing wounds and disease, an anti-paladin might be able to afflict his enemies with curses.

[Falconer]

Sept 20, 2012 6:57:20 GMT -6 ravenheart87 said:

This thread is not for 3LBB purists.

Hmm, you mean the books that state: “There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything”?

[ravenheart87]

Sept 20, 2012 10:04:06 GMT -6 Falconer said:

Sept 20, 2012 6:57:20 GMT -6 ravenheart87 said:

This thread is not for 3LBB purists.

Hmm, you mean the books that state: “There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything”?

I mean those, who say the only ture way to play is using the three original classes only. But I didn't meant to hurt anyone.

[ravenheart87]

Sept 20, 2012 9:05:36 GMT -6 llenlleawg said:

Honestly, rather than weakening the mount, consider ditching it altogether. If a given ref wants an adventure in which a paladin quests to receive a special mount, then more power to him. However, mounts are not generally helpful in most adventuring, save from getting from point A to point B.

I'll keep the bonus mount, but it's going to be a mundane horse he gets at first level. Other classes may also get some stuff, like the magic-user gets his spellbook: the black clothing for ninja, katana for samurai, whip and fedora for the archeologist.

Sept 20, 2012 9:05:36 GMT -6 llenlleawg said:

I'm not so sure about the anti-paladin approach either. Causing damage or disease is fine, although it's harder to imagine a "real world" (i.e. in folklore or fantasy) echo of an armored warrior whose touch causes disease (whereas the Biblical laying on of hands and the "king's touch" curing disease is). That's just a matter of preference, however. More problematic is the turning of Lawful creatures. That didn't enter the game until AD&D, when evil clerics of sufficient level could turn paladins. Given that anti-clerics as such cannot affect the undead at all, I would think that the anti-paladin would have no equivalent power to "balance out" the paladin's power to dispel evil. As an alternative, instead of detecting and dispelling evil, and even perhaps instead of causing wounds and disease, an anti-paladin might be able to afflict his enemies with curses.

Good points. Too much AD&D made me forget what evil meant in OD&D... I'll have to reconsider the antipaladin thing. As for the origin, I like black knights and warriors of chaos, even if in literature their depiction is usually quite rare or mundane. This version reminds me the nazgúls a bit, maybe they were something like this before becoming a wraith completely. Plus there are already classes for champions of law, chaos needs some love too.

[Deleted]

Sept 21, 2012 0:19:44 GMT -6 ravenheart87 said:

But I didn't meant to hurt anyone.

The replies to your post seem, without exception, rather positive to me. I'm sure any hurt feelings you've read into the posts were not intended.

[Finarvyn]

Sept 20, 2012 6:57:20 GMT -6 ravenheart87 said:

I’m planning to revamp the some optional classes from Supplement I-III and Strategic Review for Delving Deeper. My goal is to be faithful to the originals, not to simply copy them, so I might change a few bits here and there.

Well done, and EXALT worthy. I think having alternate versions of these classes can be nothing but positive. What it means is that I could play BTB classes or alternate as I like. (OD&D and DD being so cross-compatible and all....)

[ravenheart87]

I used to house rule them even in S&W Complete, which was quite close to the original. I had plans for re-creating them for DCC RPG too, but I solved such things in a different way there.

My biggest problem right now is the assassin vs ninja issue. I don't think assassin deserves a seperate class, especially if I add ninjas. I like oriental classes. Blame Wizardry 7-8 and NetHack for that.

[ehiker133]

Sept 21, 2012 0:30:06 GMT -6 ravenheart87 said:

This version reminds me the nazgúls a bit, maybe they were something like this before becoming a wraith completely...

Heh... yep, they were human.

[idrahil]

Hey guys, I'm glad to see other people like a bit of class flavor in their campaigns. I love extra classes. But, coming from 2e and 3.x I'm wary of a ton of extra rules and complicated "abilities". I may not use the thief class as I like the idea of everyone involved with finding things, being careful, etc.

What I am interested in is a Knight class (gotta have knights for my son) and a druid class. I want to make them low key but interesting and would like to present them to you all once their done (I just have check how the classes are presented in DD first).

Also, with no thief (or ranger) class what are the thoughts on a skill system to go along with the game? Nothing complicated just a d6 roll for everthing the thief and ranger do as well as a fwe other things like swimming, climbing and jumping. I know attribute checks might be better but attribute checks make me think of innate abilities. So, if I have high STR I might be a natural swimmer, but swimming proficiently is usually not something people just do. Same for climbing and jumping.

Thoughts?

[Deleted]

Delving Deeper has a thief class included in the RAW. Just so you know!

[talysman]

Oct 11, 2012 13:03:39 GMT -6 idrahil said:

Also, with no thief (or ranger) class what are the thoughts on a skill system to go along with the game? Nothing complicated just a d6 roll for everthing the thief and ranger do as well as a fwe other things like swimming, climbing and jumping. I know attribute checks might be better but attribute checks make me think of innate abilities. So, if I have high STR I might be a natural swimmer, but swimming proficiently is usually not something people just do. Same for climbing and jumping.

Thoughts?

For any action that doesn't automatically work or fail, DD has you roll a 5+ on 1d6 for success, perhaps with a situational +1 or -1, if it seems reasonable. For a very simple "skill system", let players pick one previous (mundane) profession or one topic of expertise; give them a +1 on the roll. Maybe Int 16+ characters can pick two of those...

I'd actually disagree with you on swimming, climbing, and jumping, but you could handle it the same way.

[waysoftheearth]

Hi Idrahil

Delving Deeper already has an implied simple "skill system" right out of the box, just like the original. The "system" is to roll a d6 for anything "hard", with a 5-6 indicating success for everyone, or a roll of 3-6 indicating success for someone who is specifically "good at" something. E.g., a thief might be "good at" sneaking, or finding secret doors, and so on.

There are also basic rules for swimming and drowning out of the box, which are state (from memory) that any PC can swim on a roll of 4-6, with the odds of drowning being proportional to armour worm. You might wish to automatically grant the ability to swim to "ranger" types, or others.

Regarding Knights, these are simply landed fighters imho. They might typically have a horse and a squire as indicators of their status... they might have certain social privileges (such as hospitality) and obligations (service to their liege), but you wouldn't necessarily need to invent a whole new PC class. But it's up to you how far you want to go with it...

When druids appeared they were (more-or-less) a dual classed cleric/magic-user (a combination which was previously disallowed by the rules). I think it might be fun to explore this possibility a little further...

Good luck, and let us know what you come up with

[idrahil]

Great news on the skill system. As for the knight, I don't really want a Paladin class but still want a toned down version of it as far as bonuses. I'm thinking a fighter with advantage at the beginning but which gives ground to the Fighter eventually.

[ravenheart87]

How about more starting money, the ability to hire more followers, bonus to morale checks, resistance to fear, combined with slower advancement and restriction about armour, mount and weapons?

[ravenheart87]

Idrahil mentioned "my paladin" in his cool little knight thread, but I'm going to answer here and drop some non-knight related info too.

I was thinking about calling the paladin knight and giving the paladin abilities only on higher level (don't forget thet religion was an important element of chivalry), but I'm going to go with a more "classic" paladin: highers saving throws, laying hands, resistance to disease on low level... The major difference is instead of getting detect and dispel evil on high levels, my paladin is going to start use clerical abilities as a level 1 cleric on level 8 - turn undead on level 8 (there's your dispel evil), level 1 cleric spells on level 9 (there's your detect evil), and so on. This also means he can use magic items only cleric could. Restrictions mostly remain.

Anti-paladins are like anti-clerics. Their touch hurts, they don't turn undead and use reverse spells.

In the same spirit the ranger's going to get start acting as level 1 magic-user on level 8 and become able to use those funky magic items. I'll drop the bonus Hit Dice, the stupid XP rules, some restrictions and the clerical spells (they aren't a religious order after all).

So, instead of adding more class abilities like Supplement I and Strategic Review did, I'm going to open up similar abilities of other core classes. This means there isn't going to be a druid spell list, they're going to be able to use magic-user and cleric spells.

I also like Supplement I man-types, but instead of house ruling them, I'm going to make seperate sub races. Eg. the elf in the DD core book is a high elf. Wood elfs don't get bonus damage to magic weapons, but they get infravision.

I'm going to bind my thesis in late November, afte thet, I'm going to collect all of these and merge my two campaigns into a single DD campaign.

[idrahil]

So would the Paladin (Knight) be a regular Fighter until level 8 & 9?

Also, short of buying things on ebay, is there nothing online that outlines what is found in things like "Supplement I, II & III" or "Strategic Review/Dragon Volume I Issue 7"? I can somewhat easily find mention of things like rangers, alchemists, jugglers all sorts of stuff but not specifics.

I'm getting a feeling that Ranger as they appear in 2e & 3.x isn't the same as what they were way back when.

[ravenheart87]

Oct 23, 2012 7:06:08 GMT -6 idrahil said:

So would the Paladin (Knight) be a regular Fighter until level 8 & 9?

Well, it would have been something like your knight, then get divine abilities around name level. But you have written a quite cool knight class, so I won't bother with creating another alternative for that.

Oct 23, 2012 7:06:08 GMT -6 idrahil said:

Also, short of buying things on ebay, is there nothing online that outlines what is found in things like "Supplement I, II & III" or "Strategic Review/Dragon Volume I Issue 7"? I can somewhat easily find mention of things like rangers, alchemists, jugglers all sorts of stuff but not specifics.

I'm sure there are threads about this on ODD74, but in short:
Supplement I: paladin, thief, half-elf, lots of monsters and rules
Supplement II: assassin, monk, lots of water monsters, a module
Supplement III: druid, psionics, demons, artifacts
Strategic Reviews: ranger, bard, illusionist
Early Dragons: funky classes (I think Best of Dragon I. has all of them)

Oct 23, 2012 7:06:08 GMT -6 idrahil said:

I'm getting a feeling that Ranger as they appear in 2e & 3.x isn't the same as what they were way back when.

Yep.

[Sean Michael Kelly]

Rough Draft of "Minotaur/Beastman" Race/Class for Delving Deeper.

This race/class is intended to be a boilerplate tweak for those players, like my 16yo son, that want to play a minotaur and/or a "Beastman" (ala Games Workshop Warhammer, etc.)

Class uses the Fighter XP points, Combat table and, HD with the following modifications due primarily to size/strength, beastly nature, and game balance.

• Poor eyesight, -1 on detecting traps, hidden doors, etc., -2 with ranged weapons
  
• Enhanced olfactory senses, +1 on tracking, identifying smell-based subjects
  
• Melee combat - fights with +2 combat, and +2 if using two-handed weapon. Otherwise +1
  
• Gains 1 additional attack every two levels.
  
• Saving Throws at 3 levels higher than normal Fighter.
  
• Uses no magic items except magical melee weapons, and custom fitting armor.
  
• Max. Level 8
  

For "flavor" we have the following suggestions:

• somewhat claustrophobic, doesn't like spaces too narrow, short, or otherwise constricting.
  
• More motivated by honor/glory than wealth
  
• Good sense of direction, rarely gets disoriented and lost. (even with poor eyesight)
  
• Because of eyesight, size, horns, there's a sort of clumsy awkwardness.
  
• Usually not fond of going into heavily populated, busy areas, (agoraphobic) unless of course, it is necessary for honor, glory, or victorious face-to-face combat.
  
• Easily enraged, moody, "bullheaded." Often, will not cease combat in spite of the odds or danger.
  
• When in such an "enraged" state, there's a 2 in 6 chance of collateral damage to any other adjacent PC's or NPC's in melee range.
  

Understanding that these tweaks and suggestions may not reflect your setting or opinions of how this type of humanoid should be played. I am not trying to reflect any particular genre or mythos here. So have your way with suggestions and ways you may like to play/use these PC's.

I'd love some feedback, especially from the DD editors. It would be fun to better define and semi-canonize the class in future supplements.

Have fun!

[waysoftheearth]

Hey SMK, here's my version of a Minotaur PC; based partly on the mythological figure but mainly on the (albeit brief) description in Vol 3 (of the DD Ref Rules), which says:

MINOTAURS are great bull-headed humanoids half-again as large as a man. They are carnivorous man-eaters and will always attack and never check morale. Nor will they ever give up a chase so long as the prey is in sight.

The Summary of Monsters table on page 6 also tells us that Minotaurs are AC 7, MV 12", HD 6, and positions them as "C, N"; chaotic or neutral.


So, knowing all that...


Should a player desire to play as a Minotaur he will be restricted to the fighting class only. He cannot be aligned with law, and nor can he employ missiles other than hurled spears, axes, and the like.

Furthermore, the Minotaur must begin play as a young buck scarcely larger than Man-sized (6'4" tall). He will, however, gain 4" height with each increment in maturity (experience level) until he attains his full adult height of 8ft at the 6th level.

A Minotaur can advance no further than this, but saves at four levels higher, and has as many HD as a fighter two levels higher (thus beginning play as a 1st level fighter with 3 HD). Additionally, his great size and mass enable him to deliver +1, +2, or +4 damage on hits if his strength score is 13-14, 15-17, or 18, respectively. What is more, he can charge or gouge like a bull, even if unarmed, dealing weapon damage (not subdual damage) with his horns and/or headbutt.

The Minotaur's hide is naturally AC 7 and wearing leather armour will promote him to AC 6, but all armour costs double at levels 1-2, triple at level 3-5, and quadruple at level 8, as he increases in size.

A Minotaur eats only meat, which also costs twice regular fare, and he must eat man-flesh in preference to all others. Additionally, a Minotaur must always pursue man-types who flee from him in combat for so long as they are in sight (presumably eating them should he catch them). Not surprisingly, his gory reputation imposes a -3 penalty on reaction checks, and he can never have any non-Minotaur retainers.

His mind is cunning but hardly academic, and he will know only half as many languages as his intelligence/wisdom suggests. He has an excellent sense of smell, however. He cannot be surprised from upwind, and can track prey by scent alone (3-6 within an turn, 5-6 within an hour).

Finally, a Minotaur has excellent direction sense -- even underground -- and is unaffected by spells that target "persons" or "man-types", but is instead subject to those that affect "monsters" or "giants". He is also immune to Confusion spells, Wands of Fear, and Drums of Panic.

Enjoy

[Sean Michael Kelly]

Feb 14, 2013 5:56:01 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Hey SMK, here's my version of a Minotaur PC; based partly on the mythological figure but mainly on the (albeit brief) description in Vol 3 (of the DD Ref Rules), which says:

MINOTAURS are great bull-headed humanoids half-again as large as a man. They are carnivorous man-eaters and will always attack and never check morale. Nor will they ever give up a chase so long as the prey is in sight.

The Summary of Monsters table on page 6 also tells us that Minotaurs are AC 7, MV 12", HD 6, and positions them as "C, N"; chaotic or neutral.


So, knowing all that...


Should a player desire to play as a Minotaur he will be restricted to the fighting class only. He cannot be aligned with law, and nor can he employ missiles other than hurled spears, axes, and the like.

Furthermore, the Minotaur must begin play as a young buck scarcely larger than Man-sized (6'4" tall). He will, however, gain 4" height with each increment in maturity (experience level) until he attains his full adult height of 8ft at the 6th level.

A Minotaur can advance no further than this, but saves at four levels higher, and has as many HD as a fighter two levels higher (thus beginning play as a 1st level fighter with 3 HD). Additionally, his great size and mass enable him to deliver +1, +2, or +4 damage on hits if his strength score is 13-14, 15-17, or 18, respectively. What is more, he can charge or gouge like a bull, even if unarmed, dealing weapon damage (not subdual damage) with his horns and/or headbutt.

The Minotaur's hide is naturally AC 7 and wearing leather armour will promote him to AC 6, but all armour costs double at levels 1-2, triple at level 3-5, and quadruple at level 8, as he increases in size.

A Minotaur eats only meat, which also costs twice regular fare, and he must eat man-flesh in preference to all others. Additionally, a Minotaur must always pursue man-types who flee from him in combat for so long as they are in sight (presumably eating them should he catch them). Not surprisingly, his gory reputation imposes a -3 penalty on reaction checks, and he can never have any non-Minotaur retainers.

His mind is cunning but hardly academic, and he will know only half as many languages as his intelligence/wisdom suggests. He has an excellent sense of smell, however. He cannot be surprised from upwind, and can track prey by scent alone (3-6 within an turn, 5-6 within an hour).

Finally, a Minotaur has excellent direction sense -- even underground -- and is unaffected by spells that target "persons" or "man-types", but is instead subject to those that affect "monsters" or "giants". He is also immune to Confusion spells, Wands of Fear, and Drums of Panic.

Enjoy

I really like a lot of these suggestions! I play NPC minotaurs as the DD "monster" stats would describe, but consider the Minotaur PC race a more "refined" variant than a chaotic man-flesh eater. Especially since a lot of our players are kids :-)

I think I'll bring them both together in a hybrid of our two. (much of it is overlap!)

[ravenheart87]

Since I received my Delving Deeper boxed set I dropped the idea to continue using Swords and Wizardry Complete for my campaign from July. I'm revamping the following classic classes: paladin, ranger, assassin, druid, monk, illusionist. I'm also going to include anti-paladin, samurai, berserker and possibly ninja, but these are only inspiried by those seen in Dragon and SR.

I'm also expanding the list of races for my campaign. So far what I'm planning to include are half-elves, half-orcs, orcs, lizardmen, felines, pixies, insectoids, but who knows what more my players will come up with.

So, stay tuned and I'll share more details during the summer. Paladin, anti-paladin, ranger, samurai and berserker are more or less done. The problematic part will be the gathering of illusionist and druid spells, plus more magic items.

[waysoftheearth]

Sounds like fun ravenheart87, can't wait to see what you come up with


FYI -- a couple of the classic illustionist spells from SR#4 will likely appear in the magic-user spell list in the upcoming DD hardback edition.

Also, FWIW, I've done a survey all the early material I've been able to find, and as a result I have a "reasonably" complete list of the OD&D spells, so I may be able to help out with the spells lists if you like.