The Bogatyr (AD&D Class)

What follows is a re-working of the Cavalier class, as well as my first attempt at "writing a class" for 1st edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. The class is somewhat specific to my own campaign setting, but should be adaptable to others. This class has NOT been playtested...yet.

Across the vast, undulating hills of the Inland Empire rides a lone figure; his armor, weathered but resolute, gleams beneath the endless skies of the Palouse. With unmatched fortitude, he roams this golden, open expanse, a defender of both its silent beauty and its humble people. His spirit is shaped by the land, being capable of enduring the harshest of storms and the fiercest of foes. He is a bogatyr, a "hero-knight," champion of the downtrodden, embodying courage and selflessness in a land as vast as his heart.

Like the thief-acrobat, the bogatyr is a "split-class;" many young fighters aspire to join the ranks of these hero knights, but few will ultimately win their spurs. To become a bogatyr, a character must earn 19,000 x.p. while advancing as a normal fighter. Entry to the class requires a minimum strength of 13, a minimum dexterity of 14, a minimum constitution of 15, and minimum scores of 10 in both intelligence and wisdom. In addition, the character must be proficient in the lance, the sword (either broad, long, or scimitar), and one horseman's weapon (the mace, flail, or military pick). In campaigns that use alignment, only good aligned characters can become a bogatyr.

While most bogatyri are human, both elves and half-elves can become bogatyr; however, non-humans have the same level limits as if they were members of the regular fighter class. A bogatyr with strength, intelligence, and wisdom exceeding 15 adds a 10% bonus to all earned experience points. The bogatyr is a subclass of fighter and uses the same combat, saving throw, and multiple attack tables, except as noted. They may use flaming oil, but never use poison.

Upon becoming a bogatyr, the speed at which the character learns new weapon proficiencies slows, as the bogatyr focuses on their "favored weapons" and horseman skills. As such, they only learn a new weapon every four levels of experience (so at 8th, 12th, 16th, etc.). 

Each bogatyr has three favored weapons: the lance, one type of sword (chosen from long, broad, and scimitar), and one type of horseman's weapon (chosen from mace, flail, and military pick). The bogatyr receives a +1 bonus to attack with any of these favored weapons, and this bonus increases as the character advances in level: +2 with the lance at 7th, +2 with the sword at 9th, +2 with the horseman weapon at 11th, +3 with the lance at 13th, +3 with the sword at 15th, and +3 with the horseman weapon at 17th. The maximum bonus for any of the bogatyr's favored weapons is +3.

Mounted combat is the special province of the bogatyr and the character adds their level to damage inflicted by a lance when mounted (on foot, a bogatyr may use a heavy lance as an awl pike, or a light/medium lance as a spear; however, the character does not receive their damage bonus when dismounted). Regardless of the weapon being wielded, all bogatyri gain an additional +1 to their attack rolls when mounted.

Bogatyri are defenders of the weak and are experts at parrying; should a bogatyr choose to parry instead of attack they may subtract all "to hit" bonuses (including those from strength, magic, and "favored weapon") from an opponent's attack roll. The bogatyr may parry a number of opponents equal to their number of attacks for the round with the weapon they're using. 

Bogatyri are all but bred to the saddle, and are unlikely to be thrown from the saddle (85% chance to maintain their seat +1% per level after 5th). They have the same chance to avoid damage should they or their mount fall.

A bogatyr may vault into the saddle, even when wearing bulky armor, and have their steed underway in a single segment. The bogatyr can urge their mount to greater speed (add +2" to movement rate), and this pace can be sustained for up to 6 turns with no ill effects on the mount. A bogatyr's knowledge of horseflesh is such they they can determine the animal's value (and estimated hit points) with but a cursory examination; any steed selected and cared for as a personal mount by the bogatyr will have +2 hit points per hit die, up to the beast's normal maximum. At 7th level a bogatyr may handle and ride a pegasus as a steed, at 9th level they may handle and ride a hippogriff, and at 11th level they may handle and ride a griffon or similar creature (DM's discretion).

The legends of bogatyr courage range far and wide, and bogatyri are immune to fear, magical or otherwise. What's more, they project a protection from fear aura that extends to all allies within a 1" radius of the bogatyr. Bogatyri are especially strong-minded and receive a +2 bonus to saving throws versus any mind-affecting magic (charm, hold, hypnosis, possession, mind blast, etc.) and a +2 bonus versus all forms of illusion magic. The spirit of a bogatyr is nigh indomitable; if reduced to zero or negative hit points, they can continue to function (although they cannot make attacks); however, taking actions other then resting and binding wounds causes them to lose 1 hit point per round. When the bogatyr reaches a negative hit point value equal to 10 plus their hit point bonus from constitution, they perish.

All bogatyri follow a code of chivalrous conduct requiring them to be fearless in battle, steadfast in their defense of the weak, pious in their faith, and loyal to their allies. A bogatyr who waivers from these ideals, or whose alignment changes to non-good,  remains a bogatyr but ceases to advance (i.e. cannot earn levels). In addition they lose their immunity to fear, protection from fear aura, saving throw bonuses, and ability to function at zero and negative hit points. To regain their full bogatyr capabilities requires an atonement spell as well as a heroic quest to regain their honor...assuming, of course, they've already returned to a good alignment.

As a bogatyr's name and fame grow and spread, they will attract young (1st level) fighters wanting to learn from the bogatyr. One such fighter seeking training appears upon achieving 6th level; thereafter, 0-2 (roll 1d3-1) new fighters will join the bogatyr's train with every level earned. The number of such followers may not exceed the retainer limit set by the bogatyr's charisma score. These fighters need to be fed, cared for, and outfitted (with arms and steed) but otherwise have no expectation of payment from their master. Not all of these will become bogatyri (some may not meet the necessary requirements), and they may be dismissed at any time by the character. Followers that fall in battle or are dismissed may only be replaced by earning additional levels of experience. 

Experience Points        Exp. Level        10-Sided Dice        Level Title

19,001-38,000                        5                        5                     Knight Errant

38,001-77,000                        6                        6                     Knight Bachelor

77,001-140,000                      7                        7                     Knight

140,001-220,000                    8                        8                     Grand Knight

220,001-300,000                    9                        9                     Banneret

300,001-600,000                   10                      10                    Bogatyr

600,001-900,000                   11                    10+3                  Bogatyr, 11th level

1,200,001-1,500,000             12                    10+6                  Bogatyr, 12th level

300,000 experience points per level required for each level after 12th. A bogatyr of 13th level and above is sometime called a "Hero-Knight Commander." Bogatyri gain 3 hit points per level after the 10th, and bonuses from constitution no longer apply.

Three Bogatyri

The Much Maligned Bard

[this is the second time I'm sitting down to write a draft on this subject; let's see if it gets posted]

When I was a kid, the bard was my favorite character class. 

As an adult, I really like fighters (of all stripes). But the bard might still be my favorite character class. Just for different reasons.

Having said that, when I say bard, I'm talking the Rules As Written, 1E (AD&D) bard. I accept no substitutes. In fact, in all other editions of the game, the bard is dead to me.

And I've tried...Lord knows I've tried...to like bards in the various editions. The OD&D version (first published in The Strategic Review). The 2nd edition version (play-tested that one, solo, when running Return to White Plume Mountain).  The 3rd edition version (played one of those, too...a half-elf). I've included my own B/X versions of the bard in two of my own books (my B/X Companion and The Complete B/X Adventurer). I even wrote up a version of the bard for use with Holmes Basic that I thought was pretty good, and I've suggested re-skinning the cleric as a bard, for folks who don't dig a religious angle in their games.

None of these suffice to make the class palatable.

And, no, it may NOT be the "adjusted" versions of the bard that are floating around the tables playing 1E. I've tried Huso's curated, bard specific spell list. I've played the illusionist-style and song-variant versions found in Dragon #56. Heck, I've posted rules for a single-class version of the bard, myself...that I've since discarded.

All unsatisfying.

Gygax's version of the bard...the version found in Appendix II of the PHB...is the only version I use, the only version I'm interested, the only version I enjoy playing or running. I first discovered that bard circa Spring of 1985...nearly 40 years ago. I've played at least half a dozen bards since then, and run (as a DM) at least half a dozen more. Hm. More (now that I think about it)...at least 7 or 8 over the years, although several of these never made it out of the "wannabe" stage of their careers.

I like the bard as written. I run it exactly as given in the PHB. I supplement ONLY with the clarifications and Q&A info provided in the Sage Advice column of Dragon #56, all of which I have found to be sound and perfectly reasonable. Aside from the lack of alignment restriction and training costs (universal changes for my home campaign), I deviate not a whit from the class as written.

I find it perfect.

As a kid, I liked the class because it was different and it seemed to offer a lot of power: thief abilities, bard abilities, spells, good fighting. The bard characters of my youth, which I have described often enough in prior posts, were powerful, and wondrously adaptable (as all multi-class characters tend to be)...but certainly not ALL powerful. High level fighters were far better at fighting. High level clerics and magic-users were far more powerful and versatile spell-casters. High level thieves could sneak better and backstab for more damage.  

My old bard...viewed with a bit of distance and maturity...was mainly "powerful" due to the possession of fairly good psionic abilities, something few bards (or few of ANY character!) can count on acquiring. Take away the psionics and you have a middling good character with a lot of abilities that requires good play to get the most out of it.

And that's what I like about the bard these days: the challenge of the character class. Leveling the character isn't difficult...well, no more difficult than leveling any fighter (fighters take a lot of x.p. to level compared to clerics, thieves, and...yes...magic-users). But once you've switched to the thief class, leveling goes fast (assuming the bard is traveling with a similarly experienced party): the character breezes through the thief levels AND the early levels of bard as well. For players who enjoy rapid advancement...and who are willing to be patient through the slog of the fighter class...the bard pays rich dividends down the road.

But the bard is no walk-in-the-park to play.  As a fighter, you must think like a fighter. As a thief, you must think like a thief. And as a bard, you must be on your toes with regard to which class abilities you use when...it's not an easy task to juggle but for the experienced gamer, that challenge is one to be tackled with relish.

The bard's high number of hit points, excellent Charisma, and automatic language learning ability makes the character an ideal leader and negotiator/spokesman for the party. Half-elf bards (with their initial language selection) are even more so, and players should become used to this style of play (i.e. not slaying everything they encounter on first sight) as early as possible (i.e. even during the fighter portion of their career). Even when pursuing fighter or thief class, it behooves the 1E bard player to think of themselves as a "bard-in-training." The biggest mistake I made as a youth was leaning to hard into the fighter aspect of the class...and then forming habits of acting like a fighter even after I had leveled into bard (and after fighter PCs were outstripping my fighter ability). My characters died a lot, in part because of my violent approach to the game...fortunately, AD&D has a variety of magic to help recover the stupidly dead character.

Some may quibble with the bard's druidic magic and whether or not is thematically appropriate or effective. Personally, I don't care. It functions. It helps describe and define just what a bard IS in terms of an AD&D campaign (their druidic nature/training). And it doesn't allow the character's spell-casting to upstage any of the other party spell-users...druid spells are powerful in the outdoors, but in the dungeon environment, they are probably the least effective of the casters. 

And, yet, a bard will never come close to the power level of a true druid with regard to spell-casting: a 10th level bard has a spell selection of 3/3/3/2 (not counting WIS bonuses), while a druid of the same x.p. total (some 250,000) has a selection of 5/5/3/3/2/1, exclusive of WIS...let's not sniff at the druid's ability to transmute rock to mud and conjure fire elementals!

Far from over-powered, the bard is a true jack-of-all trades: a little of this, a little of that. But with invaluable abilities to the adventuring party, not just with their communication forte, but with their legend lore ability: I find that to be the skill most often used by the bard. And, yet, because of their fighter training (and high hit points) they perform well in melee. And because of their thieving abilities and good saving throws they perform adequately in a "scout" capacity.  For the player who likes to keep busy, the bard can always find something useful to do.

Without upstaging the PCs with dedicated classes.

Not that I worry all that much about "upstaging;" redundancy is a desirable aspect of party building in AD&D, so that when a PC is low on hit points or spells (or dead) another party member can step up to the plate. This is why multi-class demi-humans are so useful, even at higher levels of play (i.e. when they start topping out). The bard is effectively another multi-class character...albeit with a more circuitous route...that has several unique powers and abilities. In 1E, the bard class works well and supplements most parties quite admirably.

Yeah. I love the bard. No, it's not an easy class to play, but it is a useful class to have in a party. It's not the tricksy, obnoxious, humorous thing that it's morphed into over the last 35 years. It provides redundancy AND muscle, subtlety AND spell-craft. Consider how rangers and paladins both (eventually) gain spells; the former at 150,000 x.p., the latter at 350,000 (!!). Now consider the 1E bard is pretty much the same with its delayed spell acquisition, earning its first spell somewhere between 38,000 and 140,000 x.p. Not bad at all.

I understand the philosophical objections some have to the "meta" of the class: how can a character suddenly go from fighter to thief (let alone from thief to bard) without spending several years on training. After all, even a thief is presumed to have had a lengthy apprenticeship, learning their trade, before setting off as an adventurer. My attitude is that the bard is likewise FULLY TRAINED in all its skills: fighting, thieving, "barding." But because of their order (the bardic colleges), they are required to focus their career on certain paths to prove themselves...like requiring a person to spend time as a "resident" before awarding them the title of "doctor." In order to grow in their craft, they must exercise firm discipline and focus on each branch, growing in strength and proficiency as they hone each skill set. It's not that the character "suddenly learns thief abilities;" rather, the character has only reached a point of satisfaction with their fighter focus that they can (at last) turn their attention to the thief aspect of their class. And so on.

I dig it...I really do. But it's not just the flavor of the class that I like...it is the practical way it operates. It fulfills its own niche, a niche un-shared by any other character type. The bard is strong...and it plays well at the table. At least, that's been my experience.

And I've had a lot of experience with the bard.

; )

A Hard Look At Thieves

I've written quite a bit about thieves over the years; this will be my 24th post with the "thief" tag.

While trying to put my thoughts on the character in order this morning, I asked my nine year old to give me his thoughts on the thief class. How do you feel about it?

"Overrated," was the reply. I asked him to elaborate.

"Even though thief can open locks and such, he's going to get killed." He said. "Especially in OD&D, he's just too weak in combat to survive; he doesn't get to use bows, he's forced to fight in leather armor, and even his chances of being sneaky aren't very good."

He went on: "In B/X the thief is a little better, because he can use bows and his dexterity gives him a bonus to his armor class. But you don't give DEX bonuses in OD&D and leather armor isn't good enough. They have useful abilities like climbing walls and stuff, but they're killed too easily."

What about his ability to backstab? "Well, there is THAT, but you need a couple beefy fighters in your party to distract the monsters so you can sneak around and get him from behind." You couldn't sneak up on someone? "Well, your percentage is really bad especially at low level. If I was going to take a thief to, say, the Tomb of Horrors, I'd want to be at least 6th level. At least! Then I could go armed with a sword and daggers."

So if you were to rank your class preferences, where would the thief land? "Hmm...top of the bottom." Out of four classes? "Oh, you're not talking about elves and dwarf classes? Well, if it's just the basic four [cleric, fighter, magic-user, thief] he comes in at #4 (last place) in OD&D, and maybe tied with cleric or slightly better than cleric in B/X." Clerics are worse? "Well, in B/X they don't get a spell at first level, and it's really tough that they can't use bows and arrows." That's the same in OD&D. "Yeah, but in B/X thieves get the DEX bonus and they can use bows." Oh, right, I see. And thieves need to use bows because they're kind of weak with bad armor? "Yeah, unless you're in one of Sofia's dungeons, because then you can talk your way out of fights with monsters and still get millions of gold pieces." Okay.

So is it worth having a thief in an adventuring party? "Yes, so long as they have fighters for protection. Then you can use them for other tactics." Tactics? "Like picking locks. But they need protection." Picking locks is useful? "Yeah, and fighters can't do it. Well, maybe they could, but they'd have a lot harder time. They don't have the right equipment or skills." Okay, thanks.

No mention was made of traps or hearing noise in this conversation.

As I mentioned (briefly, in passing) in my last post, I haven't actually implemented thieves in my OD&D game...if you were to read my compiled/cleaned up copy of Book 1, you would find no mention of a "thief" class. My son's inferences of the "weakness" of the OD&D thief come from (I believe) my OD&D rules (like the lack of ability score bonuses) and discussions of different weapon proficiencies in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons...the OD&D thief presented in Greyhawk appears to have the same proficiencies as the B/X thief (i.e. no restrictions on weapon use at all).

Anyway...I wanted my son's input before writing this because...well, because I appreciate his opinion on the subject. I understand that the D&D thief is/was an iconic character class for DECADES (only supplanted by the "rogue" archetype in modern versions of the game). But much as I've worked with it and used it over the years (24 posts!), I dislike the thief for a number of reasons:

- A skill set that dividing the party: picking pockets and "backstabbing" encourage PVP play. Moving silently requires the PC to be alone in her sneaking. Hiding in shadows requires the thief to be left behind (no movement) to be effective.
- An alignment restriction that might be at odds with other party members (if Paladins can't adventure with non-Lawfuls, and thieves cannot be Lawful, well...).
- Low survival rating (as pointed out by my son) without adjusting hit points and/or increasing attribute bonuses.
- As written (in OD&D and AD&D), providing demi-humans with a means of unlimited leveling, moving the game away from being humancentric by taking away one of the unique abilities of humans (the only species allowed unlimited leveling).
- Emphasizing mechanical "traps" in dungeon exploration, in order to give the thief a way to earn her keep. How many strongboxes really need poisoned needles?
- In OD&D: implies something strange with regard to the thief's (1d4) hit dice: that humans are weaker than originally modeled (1d6 hit points). I can take a magic-user's lowered survival ability being related to the pasty, sedentary lifestyle of an academic (or the corruption and body wracking toll of learning sorcery). Why d4s for thieves? Vice and (medieval) city living? Okay...but then that concerns ALL folks living in the squalor of King's Landing (or its equivalent).
- Thieves Guilds as required institutions.
- Lock picks on the normal equipment list.
- Combat considerations (backstabbing) that adds an element of tactical detail to what should be the abstract, chaotic swirl of melee. Extra justification required to explain just how backstabbing works with a number of monster types (slimes, golems, undead, beholders, dragons, giants, etc.) or else the inevitable restriction/nerfing of the class's beefiest attack form.
- Unique abilities (skills) that are so ineffective at low level as to discourage use.
- The ability to "read magic" without a spell or read and understand languages that the character doesn't know like some sort of super-linguist.

All that being said...

I could work with most of this. I have worked with most of this throughout my decades of playing D&D. And for many years I haven't had to do much with it because thieves are so garbage no one wants to play them...

[there are a lot of exceptions to this last. AD&D players with demi-humans always worked thieves into their multi-class mix. A level or five of "rogue" was often taken in my 3E days (both by myself and others). I've played thieves on more than one occasion, including a Nehwon based B/X convention game that included ONLY thieves and fighters. And my old friends Kris and Jason were notorious for ONLY playing thieves in D&D games]

I dislike that all thieves have the same skill sets, all progressing at the same increments. And yet I dislike EVEN MORE the idea of implementing a "skill system" to the D&D game.

I dislike thieves. I dislike them a lot.

The OD&D game has a character type that finds traps: the dwarf. The OD&D game has a stealthy character type: the halfling. The OD&D game has a character type that reads old, dead languages on maps: the magic-user (with the proper spell). The OD&D game has a character type that "hears noise" well: demi-humans. Does the game need to combine all these abilities in a single package?

What happened to having a party of multiple individuals contributing their individual skills, being forced to rely upon one another?

I think...I think that instead of including a "thief" class, I'd prefer to include a list of "adventuring skills" that player characters could choose from. Maybe someone is adept at free-climbing. Maybe someone is good at setting (and disarming) small traps. Etc. Characters could take a number of these skills based on their intelligence score (learning one such skill in place of a language they might otherwise know).

Maybe I'll include other skills like tracking, woodcraft, and herb lore (for healing).

I wouldn't tie success chances to level...skills would be either you have it or not. Climb sheer walls with 90% ability (penalties if doing it in windy, rainy, or snow conditions)...or whatever. Some players could build their own thief, mixing and matching the skills they want. Perhaps a magic-user was a street conjurer and pickpocket prior to her apprenticeship. Perhaps a fighter is skilled at commando-like stealth, having been a scout for the army. Whatever.

We've been playing OD&D without thieves for a while now, and I really don't miss the class. As a DM, I like having a character type that can pickpocket and backstab, but I don't like seeing it in my players' adventuring party (not in a "dedicated-to-this-way-of-life" type of fashion). My players haven't missed the class or complained about its absence. But they might appreciate adding an extra distinction to their character.

Yeah, thieves. I'm kind of done with them.

Supplemental Material

Started work on a new OD&D supplement this morning (my personal "Book IV"), mainly because I wanted to capture the new illusionist material. My intention, once completed, is to have a working "campaign Bible" to supplement (ah! That's the word!) my edited version of OD&D. At this point, it is perhaps putting the cart before the horse, considering I haven't yet set down one word of Book II.

[there are a couple reasons for this "hole" in The Work. First off, I haven't really needed the book yet: I own two copies of Book II anyway, and many creatures in my adventures to date have been hand-designed or else adapted from other sources. But mainly, I'm really considering an entire overhaul of Book II's structure, organization, and contents...and I'm still considering the exact paradigm I want to use. Is this supposed to be a book for me? Or a book for anyone? Or a book for players and DMs who want to use my campaign setting? Or what? I *do* eventually want some "bestiary" type book, but I'm not yet sure exactly what it will contain...perhaps every entry will have an "ecology" section while the tables have the necessary short-hand combat info for inclusion in adventure write-ups]

[oh, yeah...I also want to completely overhaul or do away with the treasure tables as designed. I do make use of them - somewhat - for identifying how much treasure a monster tends to have in its lair, but then I tailor each encounter's hoard individually to suit my needs. And while I have been using the included magic items as "templates" and inspiration, I am striving to make each one unique and special, and none of them are being generated via random roll. Figuring out how to rewrite THAT section is a bit of a bear, and I might not even do so, instead simply throwing some hasty notes into an appendix of Book III]

Why throw a PC class like the Illusionist into a supplement? Because I'm not yet ready for the class to be "open" to players (some things shall be "revealed" in time). For a similar reason, gnomes (as I conceive them) will not be added into Book I but, rather, left for the "supplement;" they are my own strange species (call them "svirfneblin lite"). Besides, I can't be adding a race with an illusionist option before I've introduced the illusionist, can I?

The new supplement should also include the Thief class, once I've overhauled the damn thing. Despite his Gord the Rogue writings, I'm starting to get the impression that Gygax disliked the thief concept, and I'm starting to feel the same. However, I continue to feel a lot of love for the assassin as a concept, and a thief baseline is thus a necessary evil. Starting player characters at 3rd level mercifully solves the issue of new assassins having no thief skills, and the idea currently bumping about my noggin is that of assassins as a sort of "prestige class;" that is, there aren't any 1st or 2nd level assassins (at least, not as player characters). Non-human thieves are NOT going to be the "go to" class (caused, I'm sure, by the unrestricted leveling); instead, any such character is going to be some sort of outcast from their society, probably restricted from training or progression in ANY other class.

[might make an exception for half-elves with a wisdom under 13; i.e. half-elves who are unable to progress as clerics. To me, half-elves are the true "jack-of-all-trades" character]

Of course, that would do away with my favorite multi-class combo: the gnome illusionist/assassin. But since gnomes, illusionists, and assassins are all going to be part of the supplemental material, maybe they'll get some sort of exception, too. Or maybe not...phantasmal killer is fine and dandy for any illusionist styling herself an "assassin."

[as is using a phantasmal image to conceal a booby trap, pit, or hidden assailant]

Bards will probably be a similar story (i.e. unavailable except as a single, restricted class). But then why would anyone choose to be a thief if you could get all the abilities - albeit at reduced level - plus magical abilities, bardic charming, an increased (d6) hit dice?

Why indeed.

I am, of course, looking at bards as originally presented by Doug Schwegman in The Strategic Review (volume 2, issue 1). This particular bard had none of the multi-classing madness (even though it would have functioned better and more sensibly in OD&D...). Schwegman's bard is also available to elves, dwarves, and hobbits, unlike the version Gygax gives us in the PHB. While half-elves are not mentioned, I would guess that this is a case of the class being submitted to TSR before the publication of Greyhawk (or before it was read by Schwegman), just as happened with Aronson's illusionist class (requiring his later update in The Dragon #1). Schwegman's class is a bit over-powered...attacks and saves as a cleric, magic-user spells up to 7th level (hmmm...guess he did read Greyhawk), bardic charm and legend lore, double languages, chain armor, and d6 hit dice, plus unrestricted weapon use. Sheesh.

[can you imagine a teleporting bard with the ability to cast delayed blast fireball?]

I see why A) Gygax threw the class into an appendix as an optional class, and B) attempted an update to make the thing playable within the spirit of the original, while preserving some semblance of "balance" (OR, alternatively, making the class as hard to play as possible in order to dissuade its use). I haven't yet got around to my (planned) post on the AD&D bard, but...well, now I've got this OD&D trainwreck to deal with.

[one might ask why bother? Multiple reasons, not the least of which my soft spot for the class after spending the majority of my AD&D career playing bards. Recently, I've been reading the old MZB Lythande stories...part of my research on Thieves World, one of the major inspirations for my campaign setting...and I am considering how such a character might best be modeled in the game. "Bard" would be a fair choice...]

As for other stuff that will be in the Supplement: info on the campaign world, including its geography, cosmology, history, etc. The various deities, the PC races (how and why they interact with each other), major political entities, etc. Probably The Haggard Goat (the tavern/inn that is the PCs' base of operations) and its proprietor, Meredith. Assuming she survives the players' antics.

Yes, there will be rangers as a playable class...but again, they have not yet been introduced to the campaign (they are outside the city my players are currently exploring). Half-orcs...no. This isn't Tolkien. And even in Tolkien, "half-orcs" appear (to my reading) to have been very much a product of magical cross-breeding (a la Saruman), NOT the biological offspring of two distinct species. My orcs are not the "fecund race" of 1st edition. I'm not yet quite sure WHAT they are (my players haven't encountered any); once I figure that out, I'll consider blogging about it. Maybe.

[probably some sort of magically created slave race, engineered in the misty past by decadent, sorcerous elves. Would explain why elves speak their language, as well as the animosity between the two species. In fact, done. That's the short answer to the "orc question"]

Monks? Ummmmmm...haven't decided. Need to run some mock combats between monks of various levels with a variety of opponent types. That's a loooong way off, at this point. Assassins first.

Druids? Yeah, maybe, probably. This isn't really a foresty setting (as currently conceived). Mostly sand and scrub and swamp and sea...the four S's of environments (also snow and subterranean...six S's, I guess). My original intention was to include them as a character class (the "neutral cleric" option), but I kind of like the neutral clerics I've already added to the game. Nothing in OD&D prevents a player from playing a "neutral" cleric; they're simply limited to 6th level of experience (i.e. no 5th level spells). This has allowed me to add multiple "minor (i.e. neutral) deities" to my world along with perfectly competent clerics that have no ability to raise dead, commune, or create food (they still have the potential to turn any of the undead types). Adding the druid diminishes the impact and utility of such characters...why go to a lesser cleric when one can find a druid? Mainly, however, it's more of a setting/environment thing. I'm not sure yet how many bears and beasts are going to be in the setting. Still developing.

Anyway. Huh. I sat down to blog about elves this morning and I got completely distracted with my own thoughts and ideas. And I didn't even talk much about the campaign, just thoughts on what's going into the supplemental material. *sigh*

Apologies folks. More later.

Hunter of Men

Just continuing the series started Tuesday...

Are rangers the only character class able to track in an AD&D campaign?

Clearly other intelligent humanoids...especially humans...will have some means of tracking prey. Hunting has long been a means of providing meat for the table, and the ability to find and recognize tracks is nearly as pertinent to the practice as the ability to bring down the target. People have been hunting since the stone age and it is too far-fetched (from my perspective) to restrict the skill to individuals of exceptional ability and supernatural power (i.e. rangers).

Of course, this doesn't mean folks of non-exceptional ability are as good at tracking as rangers. The class as presented in the PHB provides a 90% base chance to track in the outdoors (Unearthed Arcana adjusts this to level based, though I'm inclined to ignore most of the UA). The Expert rule book (Cook/Marsh) provides a straight 1 in 6 chance per day of successfully hunting with a far higher likelihood of the turning up a hostile predator than a tasty antelope. Foraging for nuts and berries (also a 1 in 6 chance in B/X) is a safer bet.

Still, my takeaway is that it's possible for anyone (i.e. non-rangers) to find tracks (at least obvious ones), though their ability to make any sense of sign...or successfully follow it...may be far more limited than the sturdy ranger. And while there may be professional hunters or pathfinders...something equivalent to an expert hireling...these are probably little more than an NPC with the appropriate "secondary skill" (from page 12 of the DMG): something like forester, hunter/fisher, or trapper/furrier. Any PC has about a 15% of acquiring one of these skills, should the DM decide to include these in the campaign (we always did, back in my old AD&D days).

However, it's entirely possible that a player might desire more than a random secondary skill and less than the "full ranger" experience. While the clear winner of the man-hunter category is the assassin class (duh), I know there's been a long-held interest in the bring-em-back-alive archetype, usually embodied in the bounty hunter archetype.

A typical bounty hunter.

The bounty hunter is no stranger to the D&D game: aside from the Michael Sechi version (which inspired my adaptation in The Complete B/X Adventurer), I found no less than THREE different versions of the class waaaaay back in Dragon magazine #52 (August, 1981). Later editions continued to produce their own versions, first as a "kit" in the second edition (The Complete Thief's Handbook), then as one of several similarly themed prestige classes (the "Bloodhound," etc.) in third edition. There just seems to be something appealing to the concept of what is (essentially) a paid vigilante. It goes back at least as far as the Western genre, and remains active in the imagination of the TV and movie-going public (see The Mandalorian as the most recent example).

For an "advanced" D&D campaign, I think it's a bit more interesting to add such a character type to the list of permissible classes than to tweak or alter an existing class (e.g. by lifting the alignment restrictions on rangers and/or assassins). The reason I find it more interesting is that adds specificity, an additional layer to the setting. What does it say about the world that such a character type exists? If execution of wanted criminals was the only result needed, why would anyone require more than an assassin? A specialist in tracking and trapping targets can sometimes be useful, especially if one requires more information out of the subject than can be gained through a speak with dead spell. And it almost goes without saying that there are times an employer will want to engage the services of a professional kidnapper for the capture of an individual no goody-two-shoes ranger would ever touch.

Personally, I like the idea a lot. They'd use D8s for hit dice and be open to the same races (with similar level restrictions) as the assassin class, probably with a non-lawful alignment restriction. I like the idea of a multi-class or dual class bounty hunter, and can easily see the class paired with a cleric or magic-user to give them a kind of "witch hunter" vibe (without actually needing to create a new witch hunter class). Yeah, the more I think about it (and I have been thinking about bounty hunters a lot the last two-three days) the more I think I'm going to write it up...possibly for free, but perhaps as a download for my Patreon supporters. It's about time I showed them a little tangible gratitude.

More later.

Oh My.

I suppose I should know better than to post rants penned in the wee hours of the morning following copious consumption of red wine, but sometimes the urge to hit that little orange "publish" button is so darn hard to ignore. Ah, well.

However, I do know better than to expect any sort of agreement from such a contradictory stance...I mean, it's pretty silly in the light of day to pretend that the game hasn't been doing its damnedest to define the six ability scores as something other than class-assigned mechanics ever since the first set of rule books was published. In fact, it's as ridiculous for me to state otherwise as is the publishers' various attempts to do so.

So why bother doing so? Why get mad about something that already has buy-in from so many D&D players of all stripes and generations? Just because I want to poke the bear? Generate a bunch of comments on my blog.

No, no. It was just the wine, really...loosening my already lax self-restraint. I've been having these particular thoughts lately, see? About the ascendance of importance of ability scores. And it's really started to bug me...like some hard-to-reach itch or a nagging irritation or kink in the neck that you just can't quite work out. Because it IS silly...the mechanical importance that has been attached, over time, to certain descriptive qualities that offered minor adjustments to specific individual game systems. What was once a bit of generosity has instead become all-encompassing definitions of one's fictional persona, leading to all sorts of unwelcome practices: perception rolls, social rolls, etc.

Once upon a time someone asked: "Why must my character be as stupid as me when HE has an intelligence of 18? Why must I, the shy and not-so-smooth gamer geek have to 'role-play' some interaction with an NPC, when my character has this humongous charisma stat? It's not like Bob doesn't get to "bend bars" with his 18/00 strength score...and Bob can't even do a chin-up in real life!"

AND WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN SAID (by the DM) IS:

"The characters are our avatars in the imaginary world. Ability scores provide numbers that describe certain measurable aspects that of the character that directly impact specific systems. Strength measures ability in melee combat and certain physical feats. Intelligence measures mental capacity for working magic and learning languages. Charisma measures the character's ability to make a first impression and engender loyalty in followers. Wisdom measures insight into the "clerical mysteries" and innate resistance to magical attacks. But that's ALL the numbers represent...they are a measure of certain measurable aspects. But just because you have the intelligence to master magic doesn't make you 'smart;' it means you've got a good handle on a particular career path when choosing your character's class."

That's what could have been said. It wasn't. Instead attempts have been made to fit agility, speed, reflexes, hand-eye coordination, depth perception, balance, etc. all under the single heading of "dexterity." Instead pages and pages of internet ink and silly arguments have been made trying to clearly delineate the distinctions between "intelligence" and "wisdom."

And designers from various (MOST) editions of D&D have attempted to use the ability scores as the basis for some type of skill system. And I hate skill systems...especially ones that try to use a universal mechanic to model all skills when clearly nothing could be LESS universal than "skills."

Is carpentry a skill? Is medicine a skill? I have little training in either of these, but I can learn to make a passable birdhouse or picnic table far easier than I could perform surgery. And not because it's easier to saw wood than cut flesh with a knife! But I made a working catapult when I was an eight-year old Cub Scout; I made a (poorly) working crossbow when I was but a year or two older...not that I could, for the life of me, remember now HOW exactly I did these things.

Once upon a time I was a single guy who would get dates with girls. Was this a skill? Maybe...it was a matter of learning particular social cues and finding the courage to talk to women (and the brains to listen to their own subjects of interest and not bore them overly with my own). I'd say it took me a long time to "learn" it...it wasn't until I was 19 or 20 that I really got the knack for it after perhaps a decade of trying. And even afterward it was always a difficult task...always hard to control yourself when you're with a person who's making your emotional self fire off in all sorts of unpredictable ways.

Skill systems also fail to take into account atrophy. I was once a pretty good (stage) actor...though I always had difficulty with the memorization of lines. But it's been a quarter century since the last time I was on stage; I sincerely doubt I could turn in the same kind of performance I could at my "peak," when I was reeling off reams of blank verse and captivating audiences. And it's not because my body has degenerated (the way my knees have...I definitely couldn't fence the way I did when I was in my twenties!)...I just haven't practiced my craft in decades and I've allowed my skills to lapse. This happens...I got pretty expert at laying paving stones a couple summers back when I spent eight weeks doing nothing but landscaping my back yard. Today, I can barely remember the first thing about it.

Still, I'm digressing. Here's the deal: I don't disagree that a strong character shouldn't get some (slight) bonus to a task of physical labor for which she is untrained...nor that a weak character should suffer some penalty to the same. But for the game I play (and, sure, I understand not everyone plays as I do), I feel that a character's class IS the bulk of the character's training...that's where the emphasis should be and ability scores a minor consideration as far as representing a character's "skill."

Apologies for the inflammatory scribbles.

Not the Problem that Needs Solving

Has anyone else been watching Game of Thrones lately?

I was watching the most recent episode ("The Long Night") a couple evenings ago which features the climactic battle/showdown between the majority of the (still living) cast of characters and the Army of the Dead (a hundreds of thousands strong horde of zombies supported by wight-like officers and a some undead monsters). And as I was watching, I was thinking to myself, which characters would these be in Dungeons & Dragons? And I broke it down something like this:

Beric Dondarrion - fighter (with a flaming sword), Sandor Clegane ("the Hound") - fighter (with high strength), Dolorous Edd - fighter, Tormund Giantsbane - fighter (with high strength), Samwell - fighter (with low strength), Brienne of Tarth - fighter (with high strength), Podrick - fighter, Jaime Lannister - fighter, Lyanna Mormont - fighter, Melisandre (the Red Woman) - magic-user, Gendry - fighter, Ser Jorah Mormont - fighter, Grey Worm - fighter (with high dexterity and strength), Arya - assassin, Theon Greyjoy - fighter (with high dexterity), Jon Snow - fighter, Bran Stark - fighter (or psionic, depending on system).

Just a fighter

Daenerys, Tyrion Lannister, Sansa Stark, and Ser Davos Seaworthy don't really fit any of the standard adventuring classes. In 3rd edition terms, the first three are nobles and Davos is an expert, but I really dislike this kind of "classing everyone" thing. I'd rather code Tyrion as the NPC monster class "Noble" (of the 2-3 HD variety) and everyone else as "Normal Humans," though I could see Daenerys as a re-skinned 1+1 HD Elf/Targaryan (only spell known: fire resistance, which still has to be prepped and cast, and only once per day).

Just a fighter

Jon Snow is NOT a ranger...while rangers appear to be a part of the GoT setting, it should be remembered that neither Jon, nor Sam, nor Dolorous Edd were made members of that order; all three, in fact were made "Stewards" of various sorts. This is kind of like telling a player, "sorry, you don't meet the minimum ability scores" (in Jon's case, it's a lack of Intelligence; for Sam, it's a low Constitution). One could use a halfling re-skin to model Tormund's "wildling" class (in fact, I might post an example of what this would look like sometime), but it's not super-necessary...heck, he could simply be an NPC berserker (like the monster of the same name) if you don't see him as a player character.

Another fighter

Anyway, how many different character classes is that? Three? Four? Certainly there's not much that distinguishes most of these characters from each other in terms of "class" or skills or abilities or even backgrounds (most of them come from nobility). And yet all of these individuals are very distinct from each other: not only in terms of appearance, but in behavior, motivation, and action. Some have evolved and changed (sometimes drastically) over the course of the series; others (like Tormund) are more or less the same as they've ever been, though perhaps with a different allegiance and/or "alignment."

When I see the type of rich tapestry that can be created from such basic and non-unique archetypes, it's really difficult to convince me there's much (if any) need for an elaborate character creation system in my fantasy RPG. Something as simple as B/X (or even OD&D) works just fine...maybe AD&D if you want to add some "realism" (like different weapon proficiencies) and extra "crunch" (combat adjustments based on proficiency, weapon vs. armor, and speed factor). But anything more detailed, more micro-manage-y, more video game-like, is SOOO unnecessary...and, in fact can detract from the immersive experience of the game being played.

Him, too...though might
roll D10s for hit dice.

'Course, I already knew that...it just got emphasized watching that GoT episode.

I am SORELY tempted to do some sort of write-up of these various characters in terms of some type of OSR system (OD&D or B/X). But for the most part, it's so easy to do so (for anyone), the phrase "why bother?" pops immediately into my mind. Maybe instead I'll do a quick write-up instead of house rules for a GoT specific campaign (similar to what I did with Krull)...then I won't have to argue things like who's stronger between Tormund, Brienne, and the Hound (hint: they're all in the 16-17 range).

However, please don't expect a lot of hot and heavy posting the next week or two...after (barely) getting through the April A to Z challenge, I kind of want to take a breather from the regular blogging.  Just a little.

Later, gators.

Tiefling Sorcerer: New B/X Class

[funny story; I had every intention of writing a post about the Drow -- don't ask -- and instead I ended up reading up on the whole damn tiefling species. To be blunt, the idea of a devil-blooded line of humanity only makes sense in an astral plane-hopping setting, and one that doesn't take itself too seriously (something akin to the late Robert Asprin's humorous MythAdventures fantasy series, for example). Looking back at the origin of the tieflings, I do see that they first appeared as part of the Planescape campaign setting, and that jives, but they take themselves O SO SERIOUS in a way that tries to copy the pseudo-edginess of early 90's World of Darkness. And why would they not? Planescape was published in 1994, and probably wanted to cash in on some of that angsty role-playing vibe.

[however, the "morph" that occurs between 3rd and 4th edition, making the tiefling a part of the Core character classes, is Not Good and I can only see it as having been directly influenced by the World of Warcraft, a popular MMORPG whose influence is all over 4E. Even the new look of the tiefling species in 4E (since carried over to 5E) directly apes the draenei character race of WoW, while keeping the blood elf character template's wardrobe and style sense. Is this any wonder when both the draenei and blood elf were released as a WoW expansion pack in January 2007 (WotC first announced the development of 4th edition D&D in August of that same year)? Is their any chance that the 4E brain trust looked at financial returns from the uber-successful WoW and said, hey, we need to put something like THAT in the new edition? Maybe? Regardless, the race has been part of the "core races" ever since, and has gone from a character who might have a single infernal stigmata (or even NONE!) to an obviously inhuman creature with fucking horns and flexible tail and pupil-less eyes. 

[oh, yeah...and so in writing this up for folks who want tieflings in their B/X game, I have to admit I really don't know how you'd use it. I mean, the idea that there are just small pockets of infernal-descended creatures hanging out in human towns (on the Prime Plane) is just so utterly ridiculous. It's a box of stupid. I can only imagine it working in some sort of gothic-horror fantasy world, where vampires, werewolves, and necromancers are accepted parts of society. Something like planet Nostramo (home of Primarch Batman) in WH40K, or some other world where "it's always twilight and/or foggy" (Ravenloft?). Still, I'm sure someone will figure out a way to do it. I mean, why not, right?]

*sigh*


TIEFLINGS

Tieflings are demihumans whose distant ancestors consorted with demons, devils, or similar creatures from the nether planes. Though they appear outwardly human, all tieflings bear some physical mark of their infernal ancestry: small horns, a vestigial tail, a cloven hoof, or oddly colored eyes, perhaps. Lawful creatures feel uncomfortable in their presence. Tieflings tend to be sneaky and underhanded; the world never gave them a fair shake so why should they return the favor? They are innately magical although their sorcery (described below) is different from that of a magic-user or elf. A tiefling's prime requisite is Intelligence; they earn a +5% bonus to experience points if their Intelligence is 13-15, and a +10% bonus if it is 16 or better.

RESTRICTIONS: Tieflings use four-sided dice (d4) to determine their hit points. They may advance to a maximum of 13th level of experience. Tieflings may wear leather armor, but do not use shields. Because of their slight build, they may wield only one-handed melee weapon and cannot use long bows. Tieflings use the same attack and saving throw tables as a thief of the same level. A tiefling character must have a minimum Charisma score of 9.

SPECIAL ABILITIES: Because of their infernal nature, tieflings have fire resistance (like the magic ring). Lawful characters are distinctly uneasy around tieflings, and reaction rolls with lawful NPCs are always made with a -2 penalty. They have infravision like elves and dwarves, allowing them to see 60 feet in the dark.

All tieflings are innately magical, automatically learning spells as shown on their advancement chart; these spells are chosen from the same list as magic-users. Unlike magic-users, tieflings need not memorize their spells; they draw their power from their own infernal nature and their sorcery is limited only by what their life-force allows, as determined by their level of experience. For example: a 5th level tiefling knows only seven spells, but may cast up to ten spells per day (a maximum of four 1st level spells, four 2nd level spells, and two 3rd level spells). Tiefling sorcery is powerful, but they lack the versatility of a magic-user.

Tieflings are solitary wanderers by nature. They never build strongholds or establish dominions, and they do not have clans like other demihuman characters.

				Spells Cast Per Day
Level	Exp. Points	Hit Dice	Spells Known	1	2	3	4	5	6
1	0	1d4	3	2
2	2,400	2d4	4	3
3	4,800	3d4	5	4	2
4	9,600	4d4	6	4	3
5	19,000	5d4	7	4	4	2
6	38,000	6d4	8	4	4	3
7	76,000	7d4	9	4	4	4	2
8	150,000	8d4	10	4	4	4	3
9	300,000	9d4	11	4	4	4	4	2
10	450,000	9d4+2*	12	4	4	4	4	3
11	600,000	9d4+4*	13	4	4	4	4	4	2
12	750,000	9d4+6*	14	4	4	4	4	4	3
13	900,000	9d4+8*	15	4	4	4	4	4	4
* Constitution adjustments no longer apply.

***EDIT: Had to change the table color because it wasn't showing up on the mobile device.***