[variant] Fighter Subtypes in OD&D

[calithena]

First of all, wondering if we should have a 'house rules' sub-board, for people considering variants. (Based on my re-reading the forum descriptions, though, I kind of think I should have put this and any other house rules relating to characters in Men & Magic.)

OK. This is basically a thread about giving a little extra love to fighters. I don't like endless class proliferation: I think both the basic 3 and the basic 4 of D&D hit on a pretty solid distribution of types. I really don't like the endless proliferation of special abilities that go with classes, either.

But, I like personalization, and I like some of the archetypes that go with different 'new' classes, especially fighter classes.

Elves, dwarves, and hobbits already get bonuses for things their races are good at. Human fighter subtypes allow you to give such characters additional specialties, as appropriate. Thieves, Clerics, and Magic-Users all have their own special abilities, but Fighters are pretty generic.

So, what I'm thinking about for a house rule is something like this: you can, if you want, pick a sub-type that gives you some additional ability, or slightly modifies your class abilities somehow. So, not whole new classes, just an extra little something to let you personalize a little at the start of play.

Here are some ideas:

Martial Master: +1 on all attack rolls with a favored weapon. (Archers, Amazons, etc. could go here as well.)

Barbarian/Ranger: +1 to sneaking, hiding, ambushes, hunting, etc.; +1 hit ponts.

Swashbuckler: Cannot use armor better than leather, but +2 to armor class, and +2 to saving throws against effects (like dragon breath) that might reasonably be dodged.

What do you think? Any ideas for other specialties? Want to keep it simple at all costs, but a little something like this could add flavor, help the fighting man, and give OD&D just a little push of flexibility in character creation.

[Finarvyn]

The problem with most subtypes is that they seem to get more advantages than disadvantages. For example, once the Paladin and Ranger were introduced who wanted to play a Fighting Man any more?

Your Swashbuckler sub-class is pretty neat and has balance to it, but where's the downside to Martial Master or Barbarian/Ranger. (I should also note that there is an "official" OD&D Ranger class in the Strategic Review.)

Now, if your Martial Master had a -1 to use all other weapons other than the favored one, that would be a start...

[calithena]

Good point. I'm thinking all fighters would take a subtype though, with the 'martial master' being the default if you didn't have a theme in mind. So they'd only have to be 'balanced' against each other...the 'plain vanilla fighter' would take the +1 with a weapon for free.

So, this does beef up fighters a little, but I'm not really too worried about that - the point is to give them some flava.

[crimhthanthegreat]

I am fond of both Paladins and Rangers, but if you roll 3d6 in order or some other way that is not tooooo generous, there will not be a lot of Paladins and Rangers.

[sham]

I'm a huge home brewer (OK, I'd better be more specific, I'm a fan of home brew, I'm not HUGE ;D ). That said, I found that in most of my old 'heavily home-brewed AD&D' campaigns (that were anything but *AD&D*) no one was playing a PHB class. I tended to go overboard with my home brew classes. I wanted players to try them! Now, being a much more experienced gamer in general than I used to be (and with a tip of the hat to Gygax and Arneson, who were ALREADY at the time experienced gamers) I am striving for a balance that maintains the inherent balance found in the three archetypes (FM/MU/C).

I recently put all work on my MD campaign on 'hold' while I made the transition from Labyrinth Lord to OD&D. I have been redoing the rules clarification booklet endlessly (mostly based on the work done by Zulgyan and the home brew stuff yoinked from Delta, and Gary's (RIP) verbatim OD&D House Rules, as well as my own 'We Don't Need No Stinkin' Thieves' task treatment).

Anyhow, I've made two FM Sub Classes, Barbarian and Scout. My Barbarian uses no armor, and is only allowed three magic items, but gets a +1 to hit and damage in melee, and +1 HP per Level. They get a per level melee evasion (AC) that starts at AC 9 and increases to AC 3 at level 13. My Scout is a Dexterity based class, with a bonus to hit with missiles, a pip per die damage bonus based on level (up to 4 at 13) and a passive parry bonus to AC. Able to wear Leather only, no shields and some weapon restrictions too.

The Barbarian is Human only, but the Scout allows Elves or Halflings to get as high as Level 9.

Elves in my current home brewed version are either the standard FM/MU or Scouts. No mix/match right now.

Later I will be fully brewing up the races and classes for Solstice.

~Sham

[James Maliszewski]

admin said:

The problem with most subtypes is that they seem to get more advantages than disadvantages. For example, once the Paladin and Ranger were introduced who wanted to play a Fighting Man any more?

I can't speak to the Ranger but I've never had any problems with the Paladin. In addition to their hefty mechanical requirements (Cha 17 and Lawful alignment -- never underestimate how significant a restriction the Lawful alignment can be), there are the equipment and monetary restrictions, which, again, can make a huge difference in many campaigns.

[ffilz]

I am really torn on sub-classes. On the one hand, I like the idea of options, on the other hand, I have seen what Sham talks about, about players leaning towards the cool classes and races, and ignoring the staples. It's not just a mechanical balance issue, it's also the simple fact that players like to feel like their character is unique.

So I'm really wavering on all sorts of classes. My thought is that I will provide a handfull of options, detailed on separate sheets for each class. These will be available for someone to pull out if they just don't like any of the staples.

In this vein, I'll probably do a barbarian, a ranger, something like Trent's Rogue, possibly relegate the thief to this, may or may not have the paladin (the lawful alignment restriction won't be much of one, I expect the PCs to mostly be lawful anyway), and perhaps a couple others (perhaps an unarmored fighter if the thief and rogue don't satisfy). I doubt I will have any spell casting classes other than the rogue, though I could see doing the druid (no illusionists though - I believe the illusionist just adds lots of issues to the game).

Frank

[ffilz]

That said...

I'm not sure about adding +1 to hit for the basic fighter.

Your swashbuckler sounds fine, and goes along the lines I was thinking about (though I might tie the AC bonus to dexterity). This of course would add in with bracers of AC. I might give thieves this AC bonus also.

One thought I have on sneaking types - at least for a mega-dungeon campaign, I really need to figure out how these types work in. Obviously they can have a certain role as scouts, but I don't want too much party splitting scouting. It might suffice to make it easy for them to scout just a bit ahead. If they gain surprise as a result of their sneakiness, obviously they get to take advantage of the free attack, then the non-sneaky types come crashing in as reinforcements just as the monsters come out of surprise themselves. The risk of course is if surprise is not gained, or the monsters surprise the PCs. Then the sneaky types might have to hold off for a round until the non-sneaky types get there.

Frank

[Zulgyan]

Currently testing:

Fighting-men:
All fighting-men have the advantage of being able to wield all weapons (excluding those magic Staves intended for magic-users), and to wear all armor types. However, they can use very few magical items of the non-weapon variety and can not cast spells.

Sub-classes:
There are 6 types of fighting-men:

Fighters: +1 to all attacks and re-rolls the first missed hit of every combat. Extra attack when scoring a critical hit.

Barbarians: 1 extra pip per dice of accumulative hits, +1 surprise others (unarmored), +1 damage when using no shield.

Amazons: +1 initiative and -1 opponent to hit roll, +1 surprise others (unarmored).

Archers: may fire an extra arrow per combat round if they don’t move farther than half their movement rate. They may also split-move and fire. Archers wearing Plate or heavier armor or shields fight at -1 penalty in melee and can’t fire their extra shot.

Seamen: Opponents must re-roll the first hit of every combat (unarmored); critical hits on 19-20; +2 on attacks when fighting on a ship, boat, etc.

Horsemen: +3 horse's movement, +1 to hit and damage when fighting from horseback. Attacks first on initial charge.


Feedback welcomed! ("I don't like it because..." is an accepted answer!)