Post by captaincrumbcake on Jun 5, 2017 19:48:41 GMT -5
When J. Eric Holmes gathered and reorganized the D&D rules of 1974-76 into what became the official Basic Dungeons & Dragons set of 1977 there was a lot of information he did not include. We know, generally, that the purpose of the set was to be an introduction to the game, that would (initially) allow players and referees to accustom themselves to the basic concepts of the game. From there, they could reach back into the earlier printings and find more information allowing them to expand their game play into higher levels. During development of the basic set, however, a shift at TSR decided that reaching back would not be the case, as one of the co-creators of the game was busy working on his own set of (more complex) mechanics that would eventually become AD&D; where the company wanted their consumer base to move towards.
All that being said and done. Okay. But, there was already a lot of information produced from 1974 to 1976 to be found in the original LBBs, Strategic Review, and Dragon magazine, that--for some reason-- the good Dr. Holmes decided to exclude from his introductory material. Why this was the case is a matter for discussion elsewhere. Personally, I do not believe including things like the paladin, ranger and druid would have made the "basic" set any less...basic; or have made it too complicated to understand. The classes had already been in existence a year at least before 1977.
So what would a Holmesian paladin, ranger and druid have been like? Upon examination, one will find that the 4 core classes (Fighting Men, Magic Users, Clerics and Thieves) are all described using a combination of LBB material (for XP and spells), and supplemental (Greyhawk) information as well (Hit Dice according to class, per level) etc. Would the sub-classes have used the same XP as their core partners? Would they have had the same Hit Dice?
Perhaps an exercise in such speculation should be approached and posted for consideration.
All that being said and done. Okay. But, there was already a lot of information produced from 1974 to 1976 to be found in the original LBBs, Strategic Review, and Dragon magazine, that--for some reason-- the good Dr. Holmes decided to exclude from his introductory material. Why this was the case is a matter for discussion elsewhere. Personally, I do not believe including things like the paladin, ranger and druid would have made the "basic" set any less...basic; or have made it too complicated to understand. The classes had already been in existence a year at least before 1977.
So what would a Holmesian paladin, ranger and druid have been like? Upon examination, one will find that the 4 core classes (Fighting Men, Magic Users, Clerics and Thieves) are all described using a combination of LBB material (for XP and spells), and supplemental (Greyhawk) information as well (Hit Dice according to class, per level) etc. Would the sub-classes have used the same XP as their core partners? Would they have had the same Hit Dice?
Perhaps an exercise in such speculation should be approached and posted for consideration.
