Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2017 10:31:01 GMT -6
I am preparing for a od&d campaign that will begin in the next month or two. I have run od&d games with just the white box and with all the supplements. I've found both to be fun, but want to try to find a middle ground this time.
My plan is to allow the original three classes + thief. IF someone rolls, with 3d6 in order, the ability score requirements for Paladin, Ranger, or Druid (unsure about Assassin and Bard, definitely not using Monk) then I will offer that class as an option. I'm aware that meeting the requirements for these classes is very unlikely using 3d6 in order, which is why I don't want to present these classes as on option until the requirements are met.
Any thoughts? If you use these classes how do you handle it?
The Bard is really interesting to me, I'm reading it out of The Best of The Dragon, I don't see any ability score requirements. If I use it I would probably come up with requirements similar to the Ranger.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2017 12:49:27 GMT -6
I have yet to fully complete my re-write of the thief; however, here is how I run Paladins. You don't become one until you are "chosen" at 4th level from the ranks of Lawful Fighting-Men or Lawful Clerics. This has had some play testing, but not as much as I would like. I love Paladins and Rangers, bitd I learned that a shrewd player can get a lot of mileage out of the Bard as presented in The Strategic Review/The Best of The Dragon Vol 1. If a player was going to play one now I would tweak the time out it myself. YMMV
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2017 12:54:34 GMT -6
I use the 3d6 in order straight up, and if somebody qualifies for something exotic I give them the option.
In 44 years I've had two Paladins. Considering how bloody powerful they are, that's a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Apr 11, 2017 13:40:51 GMT -6
Sub-classes are exotic specialties of regular classes. If your campaign doesn't a particular exoticism, you don't have to allow it. Do you have Tolkienian Rangers roaming around? Allow rangers. Is there no assassin's guild? Don't allow assassins. Like the idea of warrior-scholars? Allow bards. Are there orders of knighthood resembling Arthurian or Carolingian orders? Then allow paladins.
You don't have to allow a class or sub-class just because it's in a book, but neither do you have to forbid it out of some sense of "purity." Just use whatever accurately classifies adventurers in your campaign.
|
|
oldkat
Level 6 Magician
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 431
|
Post by oldkat on Apr 11, 2017 13:42:49 GMT -6
This is just my take on the matter-- Meeting minimums should not be the issue at all. Then, everyone could be a paladin, ranger, druid, bard! It'd be a madhouse!! Nah. 1. Stipulate that X.P. to gain levels for specialty classes is double that needed for basic/core class. Thus, for paladins and rangers, X.P. is double that needed by standard fighters. For the druid, it is double that needed for the standard cleric. For the bard--you figure it out! 2. Use the "minimum ability requirements" as the basis for Prime Requisite bonus/penalty to X.P. For example, to become a paladin a fighter (1) must be LAWFUL from creation, and have a "minimum" Charisma of 17; scratch the "minimum" and use that as the basis for the PR bonus/penalty. (2) For every point below this mystical "minimum" there is a -05% penalty to X.P. earned. In the case of a ranger (with 4 requisite "minimums"), the situation gets totally dire! This will allow the players to access these "special" classes, yet, make them pay for it every step of the way. Rather than say, 'okay, here are all these special classes'...but no one ever rolls the numbers needed at all. What's the point of that? ![;-|](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/squint.png) Just my thought on it. ymmv
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Apr 11, 2017 14:02:13 GMT -6
With a geometric progression based on powers of two, doubled experience requirements means only that the character will be one level behind the standard class. That's not much of a hindrance.
I'm not sure I've ever understood the idea of punishing the more powerful classes to make them "balance" with the lesser classes. Surely that balance is achieved through the paladin's required code of conduct (you don't ignore that, do you?)—having to be Lawful at all times, having to donate most of their treasure, not being allowed big castles, and only being allowed to associate with Lawful characters. In a game where you usually play murder-hobos trying to amass as much stuff and power as you can, the paladin is quite handicapped.
|
|
oldkat
Level 6 Magician
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 431
|
Post by oldkat on Apr 11, 2017 14:12:18 GMT -6
With a geometric progression based on powers of two, doubled experience requirements means only that the character will be one level behind the standard class. That's not much of a hindrance.
I'm not sure I've ever understood the idea of punishing the more powerful classes to make them "balance" with the lesser classes. Surely that balance is achieved through the paladin's required code of conduct (you don't ignore that, do you?)—having to be Lawful at all times, having to donate most of their treasure, not being allowed big castles, and only being allowed to associate with Lawful characters. In a game where you usually play murder-hobos trying to amass as much stuff and power as you can, the paladin is quite handicapped.
Its not just doubled experience required. The suggested penalty to X.P. earned for stats well below the mystical-minimum requirements, would add tremendous drag for the paladin with a Charisma of 9! (17-9 = -40% to earned X.P.) The original rules allow for fighters of 3 strength, magic-users of 3 intelligence, clerics of 3 wisdom...for a reason. If one wanted to play such a character, despite having better stats in other areas. It is truly (imo) where the role in role-playing comes in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2017 14:53:53 GMT -6
I use the 3d6 in order straight up, and if somebody qualifies for something exotic I give them the option. In 44 years I've had two Paladins. Considering how bloody powerful they are, that's a good thing. Bitd we always used 3d6 in order. Currently I give a couple of options that are not 3d6 in order with a bit of a penalty for doing so and greatly encourage 3d6 in order but don't make it mandatory. So far in the last 8 years I have had two people choose to use something other than 3d6 in order. Using 3d6 in order I have rolled both Paladins and Rangers. I do the rolling for all the characters IMC for existing players and when someone shows up for the first time, I either hand them a pregen character or give them three pregens to choose from in the interest of time since we only get to play once a month. I have yet to have anyone complain because I did the rolling for the characters stats.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2017 16:31:39 GMT -6
I use the 3d6 in order straight up, and if somebody qualifies for something exotic I give them the option. This is what I had planned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2017 16:43:54 GMT -6
The main reason I was able to sell this group on od&d is that the majority of my players don't care at all about the rules and don't like having to look anything up in the book. I don't want to push against this by presenting 8-9 character classes as options, but I still want to keep the possibility of an exotic class showing up from time to time.
The decision I am trying to make is whether or not to tell them in advance that they might (probably not) get lucky and be able to access an exotic class.
I've played with all the classes before as options, I did not enforce ability score requirements, and while we had fun, I found that a party full of druids, rangers, and paladins slightly derailed the game. I don't know, the more I think about it I may just stick with the original three + rogue.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Apr 11, 2017 17:17:28 GMT -6
@noodles , here is my two-coppers:
Tell them that the classes are just that: big broad strokes. And as they play, they can make their characters into anything they like that could possibility fit within that class, through how they role play the character. The classes are the beginning, not the end.
I have a general principle that I try to follow in all things D&D that is why I run 0e and 0e only: never resolve by mechanic what could be resolved through role play.
Again, here is how I run things, for whatever it is worth to you. No thieves: everyone is a thief. You want to steal something? Go for it. Tell me what you do. I'll tell you if you succeed.
You want to be a Paladin? Okay, go make a pledge to a patron saint (god) of loyalty to law forever and see if you get any special boons for it. See what curses come your way if you abrogate it. No mechanics necessary.
You want to be a ranger? Play your character like he is one and, in time, he will be one.
You want to be a bard? Buy a musical instrument and start taking lessons. See what happens next.
You want to be a druid? Find one and become his apprentice. That should become interesting pretty quick!
The three original classes are all the classes I need. Everything else is a specialization that fits within those buckets. It is not the player who specializes through adding a bunch of mechanics to his/her character record. It is the character who specializes through in-game decisions.
Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by smubee on Apr 11, 2017 23:31:42 GMT -6
Could not agree more with your last paragraph.
"The three classes are all that is necessary, everything else is a sub-section".
Perhaps it's because in modern D&D they don't use level titles anymore, but man I don't know how much easier to make "Fighter", "Magic User" or "Cleric".
When I'm trying to explain this to people they say "Man there's only one type of magic user? What if I want to be a wizard.. Or a sorcerer? Or a warlock?" I say "magic USER. This CLASSIFICATION of character does not dictate which spells you know and cast."
CLASS is a CLASSIFICATION. Everything else is up to the player. It's so simple and so easy to understand. Opposed to "What kind of magic do Warlock's cast? And where does the magic come from if I'm a sorcerer?"
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Apr 12, 2017 7:40:27 GMT -6
Well... no. This is a bit of fundamentalism that obscures reality. The original set-up was those who fight, those who use magic, and those who do both with a veneer of religion. But that doesn't cover every possible mode of adventuring. Thieves don't generally fight or use magic; they infiltrate. You can't specialize a fighter into a thief without changing his modus operandi.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Apr 12, 2017 8:37:08 GMT -6
Thanks, smubee. I dig your post too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2017 11:10:17 GMT -6
"Fundamentalism" is a perfectly valid word, and is being used correctly. You are indeed taking a fundamental approach to the original three classes. I have no idea why you think "fundamentalism" is "not a kind way to talk to someone."
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Apr 12, 2017 11:31:27 GMT -6
"Fundamentalism" is a perfectly valid word, and is being used correctly. You are indeed taking a fundamental approach to the original three classes. I have no idea why you think "fundamentalism" is "not a kind way to talk to someone." True enough, Gronan, true enough! I modified my post accordingly. Thanks.
|
|
idrahil
Level 6 Magician
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
The Lighter The Rules, The Better The Game!
Posts: 398
|
Post by idrahil on Apr 12, 2017 23:14:04 GMT -6
Well... no. This is a bit of fundamentalism that obscures reality. The original set-up was those who fight, those who use magic, and those who do both with a veneer of religion. But that doesn't cover every possible mode of adventuring. Thieves don't generally fight or use magic; they infiltrate. You can't specialize a fighter into a thief without changing his modus operandi.I'm going to offer an alternate view: Conan, Valeria, and Subotai in the movie. They were various types of fighters but switched to infiltration when needed. Its why I've begun thinking of dropping the thief class in favor of "dungeoneering" or "infiltration" skills.
|
|
|
Post by smubee on Apr 13, 2017 8:31:03 GMT -6
Well... no. This is a bit of fundamentalism that obscures reality. The original set-up was those who fight, those who use magic, and those who do both with a veneer of religion. But that doesn't cover every possible mode of adventuring. Thieves don't generally fight or use magic; they infiltrate. You can't specialize a fighter into a thief without changing his modus operandi.I'm going to offer an alternate view: Conan, Valeria, and Subotai in the movie. They were various types of fighters but switched to infiltration when needed. Its why I've begun thinking of dropping the thief class in favor of "dungeoneering" or "infiltration" skills. When I play OD&D I play 3 LBB only. No thief. There are so many fantasy systems that use a thief or rogue, that instead of saying "No you can't be one in my campaign." you can just say "They're not listed as optional."
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Apr 13, 2017 11:31:34 GMT -6
I'm going to offer an alternate view: Conan, Valeria, and Subotai in the movie. They were various types of fighters but switched to infiltration when needed. Its why I've begun thinking of dropping the thief class in favor of "dungeoneering" or "infiltration" skills. And as soon as there's a monster to fight, Conan heaves a giant sword.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Apr 13, 2017 11:51:43 GMT -6
You could offer a list of pre-rolled character stats. Just roll a big series, in order of course, and provide them to the players to pick from. Then cross off each character as they are selected. This way you know whether or not some stats might qualify for your subclasses before running the game. You can drop dump stats into the NPC pile too this way.
Also, think about Min/Maxing as an option for players who really want a particular specialty. The OD&D booklets did include them. Min/Maxing meaning lowering 2 or 3 points to raise 1 in a prime requisite depending upon the class. This will open up more options on the pre-rolled sheet too, which won't be immediately obvious.
If you are going with subclasses, maybe offer short descriptions and stat requirements during PC creation. I mean, not the mechanics before they show interest, but something demonstrating specializations you already put in the game world.
|
|
idrahil
Level 6 Magician
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
The Lighter The Rules, The Better The Game!
Posts: 398
|
Post by idrahil on Apr 13, 2017 12:52:56 GMT -6
I'm going to offer an alternate view: Conan, Valeria, and Subotai in the movie. They were various types of fighters but switched to infiltration when needed. Its why I've begun thinking of dropping the thief class in favor of "dungeoneering" or "infiltration" skills. And as soon as there's a monster to fight, Conan heaves a giant sword. Right, so if I'm translating that to a tabletop game, I think of him as a Fighting-Man with infiltration skills. But! If my campaign is sort of Middle Earth like, Bilbo is more the thief class. Either way, its an interesting point for me to revisit from time to time. What makes little sense is this idea of rogues as "damage dealers".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 12:57:03 GMT -6
If you are going with subclasses, maybe offer short descriptions and stat requirements during PC creation. I mean, not the mechanics before they show interest, but something demonstrating specializations you already put in the game world. I like this quite a bit. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Apr 13, 2017 13:27:57 GMT -6
Thanks. BTW, I meant the Min/Maxing rules are in the booklets, so... why not use them? Even though they get a bad rap, I've met quite a few players who show up really only to play one class.
Also, once you feel more confident about the game's design and how it is balanced you might want to offer "Other" as an option too. Like a new demi-human race or new subclass, which the players define in text/drawing/whatever and you build (balance, and playtest) within your hidden game design.
|
|
oldkat
Level 6 Magician
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 431
|
Post by oldkat on Apr 13, 2017 14:07:48 GMT -6
After more thinking on the matter, this (above quote) seems, to me, the crux of your dilemma. Why, in particular, are you struggling with this issue? Is it the "mins"? or the idea of classes "other" than the 3 core options? Yet, you are considering them.
Tetramorph described, simply and on-target, the philosophy for having the character become the so-called special-class. But if you need more urging to make these (bards, druids, paladins, rangers) allowable, perhaps this quote from Vol. 1, p.8 will help:
"Other Character Types There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top,"
Allowing all other options was always part of the original philosophy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 16:45:24 GMT -6
After more thinking on the matter, this (above quote) seems, to me, the crux of your dilemma. Why, in particular, are you struggling with this issue? Is it the "mins"? or the idea of classes "other" than the 3 core options? Yet, you are considering them. Tetramorph described, simply and on-target, the philosophy for having the character become the so-called special-class. But if you need more urging to make these (bards, druids, paladins, rangers) allowable, perhaps this quote from Vol. 1, p.8 will help: " Other Character Types There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top," Allowing all other options was always part of the original philosophy. The only thing I've been struggling with is how to present the exotic classes to the players. I really like howandwhy99 's suggestion of presenting the extra classes only with a brief description and listing the minimum ability scores needed to play the class. Before this suggestion I was considering saying nothing to my players about Paladins, Druids, and Rangers until someone actually rolled the required scores, which may or may not have ever happened. I like these classes to be part of the setting, but rare. I'm concerned that 3d6 in order will make them too rare for my tastes, @gronanofsimmerya mentioned only having paladins in 44 years of rolling 3d6 in order. I'm not sure I want to even suggest the possibility of these classes if the math behind 3d6 in order makes them this improbable. I'm still considering other ideas to reinforce the rarity of these exotic classes while still including them in the game. I like your idea about doubling experience requirements. As you mentioned, tetramorph's ideas for organically introducing the classed through game play are really great. @theperilousdreamer's ideas for paladin's are really good too. I'm really glad I asked, getting some really useful ideas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 17:20:01 GMT -6
This is just my take on the matter-- Meeting minimums should not be the issue at all. Then, everyone could be a paladin, ranger, druid, bard! It'd be a madhouse!! Nah. 1. Stipulate that X.P. to gain levels for specialty classes is double that needed for basic/core class. Thus, for paladins and rangers, X.P. is double that needed by standard fighters. For the druid, it is double that needed for the standard cleric. For the bard--you figure it out! 2. Use the "minimum ability requirements" as the basis for Prime Requisite bonus/penalty to X.P. For example, to become a paladin a fighter (1) must be LAWFUL from creation, and have a "minimum" Charisma of 17; scratch the "minimum" and use that as the basis for the PR bonus/penalty. (2) For every point below this mystical "minimum" there is a -05% penalty to X.P. earned. In the case of a ranger (with 4 requisite "minimums"), the situation gets totally dire! This will allow the players to access these "special" classes, yet, make them pay for it every step of the way. Rather than say, 'okay, here are all these special classes'...but no one ever rolls the numbers needed at all. What's the point of that? ![;-|](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/squint.png) Just my thought on it. ymmv Interesting options, even though it is not my cup of tea, I love to see other peoples options, 'cause it always spurs new ideas. FWIW, I did the following for several months as a playtest"quoting from my forum- Ruins of Murkhill.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 17:37:35 GMT -6
I really like howandwhy99 's suggestion of presenting the extra classes only with a brief description and listing the minimum ability scores needed to play the class. Before this suggestion I was considering saying nothing to my players about Paladins, Druids, and Rangers until someone actually rolled the required scores, which may or may not have ever happened. I like these classes to be part of the setting, but rare. I'm concerned that 3d6 in order will make them too rare for my tastes,@gronanofsimmerya mentioned only having paladins in 44 years of rolling 3d6 in order. I'm not sure I want to even suggest the possibility of these classes if the math behind 3d6 in order makes them this improbable. You never know what is going to happen when you start rolling dice. A couple of years ago I sat down and rolled up 40 pregens 3d6 in order. Out of the 40 I had 4 possible paladins and 3 possible rangers. I had 2 pregens that had a 13 as the minimum stat result. I also had 2 pregens with nothing above a 6. The dice will sometimes run hot, sometimes cold and sometimes just straight average. I once witnessed a player when I was reffing roll 7 straight naturals 20's when everyone else using the same die were rolling 1's, 2's and 3's. I have learned not to be surprised by anything when it comes to dice rolls. Bitd in front of 15 witnesses a character was rolled with the d6's that everyone was using 3d6 in order the following rolls: 18, 18, 18, 18, 17, and 18. We were using Extraordinary strength and a 00 was rolled for the highest possible strength. Nothing is impossible, just highly improbable,
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Apr 14, 2017 9:03:26 GMT -6
What makes little sense is this idea of rogues as "damage dealers". I think that comes from video games, where the only object is to fight stuff, and the choice of class just gives you differently dressed attack forms. Where a "tank" uses swords and hammers, a "rogue" uses sneak attacks and poisoned daggers. The tank's ability to absorb damage is equal to the rogue's ability to avoid damage. Both get the same mission to go kill twenty orcs and mash the same buttons to accomplish it.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Mar 4, 2019 14:16:06 GMT -6
The Paladin/Anti-paladin
1. A paladin may use only magic swords of same alignment
2. A paladin must roll under his wisdom score on d20 when facing opposing alignment. a. to avoid charging into melee b. to withdraw from melee c. to grant quarter to (spare lives of)
If failed, the paladin will continue to attack for that round.
3. A paladin has the following cosmic alignment advantages a. +2 save vs magic b. +1 to hit opposing alignment c. +1 damage with magic swords
4. A paladin loses his status if attacking those of same align for personal gain or without provocation. a. A lawful paladin may kill lawfuls only to defend his person/retinue, his honor, or to serve the interests of law. b. An anti-paladin may kill chaotics only to defend his person/retinue, his honor, or to serve the interests of chaos.
5. A paladin will not aim for the helm when jousting with a fighting-man of the same alignment.
I don't like taking away player agency with (2a.,b.,c.), but this limits player choice of the paladin class to a small % of characters, whose high wis will keep them safe more often than not. Hopefully it also gets across the feel of what the class is about - a lawful paladin fights for law, and anti-paladin fights for chaos. The above paladin isn't necessarily a better choice than the fighting man, and doesn't feel like a F/C combo. This paladin can own slaves like the wilderlands paladin, and can be a coward like the tegal manor paladin (as long as the cosmic force doesn't overtake him). A low wisdom paladin here is basically a berseker!
|
|
scrape
Level 1 Medium
OD&D referee and player in Norman, OK
Posts: 12
|
Post by scrape on Jun 14, 2019 9:13:28 GMT -6
The three original classes are certainly sufficient to have a fun game. I can easily agree with Tetramorph about that. That was my initial approach when I returned to OD&D a decade or so ago, and we had lots of fun with it.
Then I softened my stance over time. There are two reasons why I allow the classes from "Greyhawk," "Blackmoor," "Eldritch Wizardry," SR, and the earliest issues of Dragon magazine (up to July '76).
First, I was allowed to play them back in the 70s. My initial relationship with OD&D always had some supplements hanging around. My best character in 1976 was an illusionist. So they feel canonical to what Old School means to me.
Second, players simply looking for a D&D game and unattached to my brand of fundamentalism like some of these sub-classes. If it keeps a strong player in the campaign by allowing her to play a druid from "Eldritch Wizardry", the health of my campaign prompts me to offer that option. I don't have the luxury of indulging my fundamentalism to the exclusion of maintaining the interest of my friends.
My heterodox approach could lead down to AD&D and beyond, but this is my pragmatic solution. I get the thrill of running OD&D as I knew it originally, and my friends get to play a class that captures their imaginations.
I'm here too late to ask noodles what he decided and how it all turned out.
|
|