The handling of non-human paladins/rangers
Feb 10, 2017 14:30:54 GMT -5
Admin Pete, scottanderson, and 1 more like this
Post by captaincrumbcake on Feb 10, 2017 14:30:54 GMT -5
In my "Extending the non-humans" thread, I discuss the application of a Rank system for dwarf, elf and hobbit to extend their playability beyond their HD limits. I borrowed this concept from Frank Mentzer, and his Companion manual; though the principle of extending/expanding the level ranges of non-humans is not new, nor does it originate with Mr. Mentzer.
In said thread I also proposed the idea of non-human paladins and rangers. This idea is not unique, either. In the original rules, it is quite possible to create a non-human paladin (through the Greyhawk supplement); as long as the character has a 17 charisma, and is Lawful at the moment of creation, the "sub-class" of paladin is never restricted to humans only, in the text. In my BOD 1 p.55, the sub-class of ranger is described. I am not in possession of the Strategic Review in which this character class first appeared, so I cannot refer to it. But according to the BOD-1, I am unable to find any specific wording that restricts the subclass to only humans.
Since I am not in favor of including ability requirements for classes (as the original rules didn't deem it important to suggest such either), I see no justification for doing so. However, the key to why a player would pick one class over another is subjective and if any impetus or discouragement mechanism is apparent in the original rules it is the bonus/penalty to XP based upon one's ability score in the Prime Requisite/s.
It is from this approach that the sub-classes should promote serious decision-making from players wishing to undertake the challenge of playing them. The GH paladin requires a Charisma of 17 or better in order to quality for the subclass. But such is a mechanism by the designer for a specific purpose. One can agree with it, and embrace it, or not. If a paladin is a Lawful being, intent on doing nothing but Lawful actions, there is nothing about such that requires a person to be charismatic.
Strength is the prime requisite for the fighter, but the player could have a character with 3, 4 or 5 strength, and have a grand time role playing such through numerous adventures, and reap mounds of treasure and fame. The original (1974) rules do not benefit or penalize high or low strength scores. One does not need a certain strength to use a shield, wield a weapon, or wear certain armor. The experience of the adventure, and how that is derived through the character, seem more important, IMO, than owning Boardwalk or Park Place (as in the game Monopoly); role playing should control the dice...not the reverse.
So in this attempt to re-approach the original rules, the concept of opening up and considering new perspectives is the motivation, with role playing given as much priority as possible. And thus, it is in this light that non-human paladins and rangers might be given such consideration. To do this, first, one needs to just do away with all that ability-score-requirement stuff found in the supplements. Then, for every suggested ability score requirement, if the characters actual score is below such, use the penalty to XP earned given in Vol. 1 of the original rules under prime requisites; this could end up by doubling or tripling the penalty; but note, I recommend that regardless of superior die rolls, no bonus to XP is given to the paladin/ranger.
How I propose the dwarf/elf/hobbit to fit into this perspective is simply to follow the lines of the other thread. They would rise in HD up to their given limit, then progress beyond by earning experience and gaining Ranks. For each 3 ranks above their HD limit, they are treated as 1 HD higher with regard to the subclass abilities.
zots! I may have meandered all over the place. I hope there is some consistency in what I just posted. lol
In said thread I also proposed the idea of non-human paladins and rangers. This idea is not unique, either. In the original rules, it is quite possible to create a non-human paladin (through the Greyhawk supplement); as long as the character has a 17 charisma, and is Lawful at the moment of creation, the "sub-class" of paladin is never restricted to humans only, in the text. In my BOD 1 p.55, the sub-class of ranger is described. I am not in possession of the Strategic Review in which this character class first appeared, so I cannot refer to it. But according to the BOD-1, I am unable to find any specific wording that restricts the subclass to only humans.
Since I am not in favor of including ability requirements for classes (as the original rules didn't deem it important to suggest such either), I see no justification for doing so. However, the key to why a player would pick one class over another is subjective and if any impetus or discouragement mechanism is apparent in the original rules it is the bonus/penalty to XP based upon one's ability score in the Prime Requisite/s.
It is from this approach that the sub-classes should promote serious decision-making from players wishing to undertake the challenge of playing them. The GH paladin requires a Charisma of 17 or better in order to quality for the subclass. But such is a mechanism by the designer for a specific purpose. One can agree with it, and embrace it, or not. If a paladin is a Lawful being, intent on doing nothing but Lawful actions, there is nothing about such that requires a person to be charismatic.
Strength is the prime requisite for the fighter, but the player could have a character with 3, 4 or 5 strength, and have a grand time role playing such through numerous adventures, and reap mounds of treasure and fame. The original (1974) rules do not benefit or penalize high or low strength scores. One does not need a certain strength to use a shield, wield a weapon, or wear certain armor. The experience of the adventure, and how that is derived through the character, seem more important, IMO, than owning Boardwalk or Park Place (as in the game Monopoly); role playing should control the dice...not the reverse.
So in this attempt to re-approach the original rules, the concept of opening up and considering new perspectives is the motivation, with role playing given as much priority as possible. And thus, it is in this light that non-human paladins and rangers might be given such consideration. To do this, first, one needs to just do away with all that ability-score-requirement stuff found in the supplements. Then, for every suggested ability score requirement, if the characters actual score is below such, use the penalty to XP earned given in Vol. 1 of the original rules under prime requisites; this could end up by doubling or tripling the penalty; but note, I recommend that regardless of superior die rolls, no bonus to XP is given to the paladin/ranger.
How I propose the dwarf/elf/hobbit to fit into this perspective is simply to follow the lines of the other thread. They would rise in HD up to their given limit, then progress beyond by earning experience and gaining Ranks. For each 3 ranks above their HD limit, they are treated as 1 HD higher with regard to the subclass abilities.
zots! I may have meandered all over the place. I hope there is some consistency in what I just posted. lol
