Are these Rules "New School" or just 1970's Options
Jun 1, 2018 8:05:22 GMT -5
Admin Pete, Hexenritter Verlag, and 1 more like this
Post by Q Man on Jun 1, 2018 8:05:22 GMT -5
I shouldn't have to say this, but I will anyway. This thread is not about running down the way someone else plays, it is solely about is this a new idea or has it been around since close the beginning.
Disclaimer: Everything in quotes in this OP are from this thread on another forum. The thread at that link is only visible to logged in members of that forum. It is exclusive club content. I had to ask a member there to provide the link for me. It was open content at the time this thread was created and the only reason links were not provided is because none of this is original, but has been thought up independently and used by 10's of thousands of gamers over the last 40+ years. But if you are interested in who the guilty parties for these ideas are, then join the other forum for that information.
I saw a thread titled ""New school" rules that you use in your "old school" OD&D" and I wondered how many of these rules are new school(d20/3E or later and how many are things that were already tried between 1971 and 1976?.
Since we have robkuntz , @gronanofsimmerya and @chirinebakal (and a slew of early refs) I wondered how many of these were tried during the playtest days pre-publication 1971-1973 and how many were tried after publication 1974-1976. Are any of these really new or do people just think they are new?
Please just comment in that context. Whether or not a particular rule is a good rule or not and whether or not it is "fixing" something that needs fixed or not and whether or not the rule has unintended or unforeseen consequences please take that to a new thread so we keep this one on topic. Thank you!
I am going to quote and number these so that it will be easier to reply and keep track of where you are at. Some of these make value judgments about rules and please take comments about those to a new thread.
1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)
5.)
6.)
7.)
8.)
9.)
10.)
11.)
12.)
13.)
14.)
15.)
16.)
17.)
18.)
19.)
20.)
21.)
22.)
23.)
24.)
25.)
26.)
27.)
28.)
29.)
30.)
31.)
32.)
33.)
34.)
35.)
Disclaimer: Everything in quotes in this OP are from this thread on another forum. The thread at that link is only visible to logged in members of that forum. It is exclusive club content. I had to ask a member there to provide the link for me. It was open content at the time this thread was created and the only reason links were not provided is because none of this is original, but has been thought up independently and used by 10's of thousands of gamers over the last 40+ years. But if you are interested in who the guilty parties for these ideas are, then join the other forum for that information.
I saw a thread titled ""New school" rules that you use in your "old school" OD&D" and I wondered how many of these rules are new school(d20/3E or later and how many are things that were already tried between 1971 and 1976?.
Since we have robkuntz , @gronanofsimmerya and @chirinebakal (and a slew of early refs) I wondered how many of these were tried during the playtest days pre-publication 1971-1973 and how many were tried after publication 1974-1976. Are any of these really new or do people just think they are new?
Please just comment in that context. Whether or not a particular rule is a good rule or not and whether or not it is "fixing" something that needs fixed or not and whether or not the rule has unintended or unforeseen consequences please take that to a new thread so we keep this one on topic. Thank you!
I am going to quote and number these so that it will be easier to reply and keep track of where you are at. Some of these make value judgments about rules and please take comments about those to a new thread.
1.)
Ascending AC
Back in the 1970's I got tired of descending AC because it just wasn't logical to me, so I created an "armor rating" which started at zero (no armor) and got bigger as the armor got better. To hit someone, you had to beat 10+AR. In retrospect, 3E's ascending AC which goes from 10 and gets bigger is essentially the same thing, only better.
Back in the 1970's I got tired of descending AC because it just wasn't logical to me, so I created an "armor rating" which started at zero (no armor) and got bigger as the armor got better. To hit someone, you had to beat 10+AR. In retrospect, 3E's ascending AC which goes from 10 and gets bigger is essentially the same thing, only better.
No rolling Hit Points
I grew up preaching how much I liked the randomness of HP, but I realized later that this was unfair because I spent most of my time as a DM instead of as a player. From a player perspective, I feel like pre-determined HP is a lot more "fair" and helps a character survive the "1 hp" crisis which can develop from a single bad roll.
For years I used a rules of "re-roll each time you level up, but your total can't go down" with the notion that a bad roll is probably overcome with the next level-up but a good roll can stay with you for a while. Now that I've played 5E for a few years, I'm growing to love the mathematical equations involved in generating HP. My current preference would be to use the OD&D LBB progression, but replace each d6 with 4 hp. (Example: 3+1 Hit Dice would be 3*4+1=13 hp)
I grew up preaching how much I liked the randomness of HP, but I realized later that this was unfair because I spent most of my time as a DM instead of as a player. From a player perspective, I feel like pre-determined HP is a lot more "fair" and helps a character survive the "1 hp" crisis which can develop from a single bad roll.
For years I used a rules of "re-roll each time you level up, but your total can't go down" with the notion that a bad roll is probably overcome with the next level-up but a good roll can stay with you for a while. Now that I've played 5E for a few years, I'm growing to love the mathematical equations involved in generating HP. My current preference would be to use the OD&D LBB progression, but replace each d6 with 4 hp. (Example: 3+1 Hit Dice would be 3*4+1=13 hp)
Point Buy for Attributes
Same type of argument as for HP, I find that some folks at my table always seem to be absurdly lucky or unlucky when it comes to rolling stats so why not start them all off on equal footing. (That way, they can save their luck/unluck for combat rolls or saving throws.) I like the "Adventurer's League" method somewhat because it caps starting attributes at 15 (or maybe slightly higher with racial modifiers) but I think I want to start characters off with fewer points to buy stats with so that the numbers are more OD&D-like. I haven't found that "sweet spot" number yet, however.
Same type of argument as for HP, I find that some folks at my table always seem to be absurdly lucky or unlucky when it comes to rolling stats so why not start them all off on equal footing. (That way, they can save their luck/unluck for combat rolls or saving throws.) I like the "Adventurer's League" method somewhat because it caps starting attributes at 15 (or maybe slightly higher with racial modifiers) but I think I want to start characters off with fewer points to buy stats with so that the numbers are more OD&D-like. I haven't found that "sweet spot" number yet, however.
Unified XP charts
I scrapped XP altogether for decades because I didn't want to bother with the details and I disliked giving XP for gold since gold is its own reward. Recently I've gone back to XP but am basing it more on monster kills and trap evasion than on gold found. I've been tinkering with using the Fighting Man XP chart, but at 10% of the listed values. Again, not set in stone yet.
I scrapped XP altogether for decades because I didn't want to bother with the details and I disliked giving XP for gold since gold is its own reward. Recently I've gone back to XP but am basing it more on monster kills and trap evasion than on gold found. I've been tinkering with using the Fighting Man XP chart, but at 10% of the listed values. Again, not set in stone yet.
Magic-user Cantrips
Years ago I created a MU cantrip called a "zap spell" which did the same damage as a bow, had an "unlimited" number of uses, and required a to-hit roll. I did this in response to my wife's complaints, that she wanted to play Magic-users (and only MU's, by the way) and felt like shooting a bow or throwing daggers when she ran out of spells was sort of silly and didn't fit her concept of what a MU ought to be able to do. The "zap spell" turned out not really to unbalance anything but gave her something magical to do when she wasn't bringing out the magical Big Guns. My 5E experience has gotten me thinking that Read Magic, Light, and a few other spells ought to be freebies as well.
Years ago I created a MU cantrip called a "zap spell" which did the same damage as a bow, had an "unlimited" number of uses, and required a to-hit roll. I did this in response to my wife's complaints, that she wanted to play Magic-users (and only MU's, by the way) and felt like shooting a bow or throwing daggers when she ran out of spells was sort of silly and didn't fit her concept of what a MU ought to be able to do. The "zap spell" turned out not really to unbalance anything but gave her something magical to do when she wasn't bringing out the magical Big Guns. My 5E experience has gotten me thinking that Read Magic, Light, and a few other spells ought to be freebies as well.
Monster HP
I don't roll HP for monsters (assume 4 HP per HD, unless it's supposed to be tough, then I give the monster 6 HP/HD), but still make players roll. Max HP at level 1 though, to give 'em a chance.
I don't roll HP for monsters (assume 4 HP per HD, unless it's supposed to be tough, then I give the monster 6 HP/HD), but still make players roll. Max HP at level 1 though, to give 'em a chance.
Advantage/Disadvantage
Advantage/Disadvantage is something else I've considered adding to my games. It's easy to grok and easy to implement and does away with most of the fiddly modifiers. If someone wants to do something crazy, you can just say "Sure, but you have disadvantage."
Advantage/Disadvantage is something else I've considered adding to my games. It's easy to grok and easy to implement and does away with most of the fiddly modifiers. If someone wants to do something crazy, you can just say "Sure, but you have disadvantage."
Class abilities for all Classes
One of my rainy day goals is to rewrite the classes in general. One idea is to give each class certain d6 abilities usable at will more or less (subject to some reasonable interval for retrying when a check is failed in a particular situation, maybe a day). For magic-users, it would be the ability to read or detect magic on 1-2 on a d6, and then have it scale with level (maybe 4th - 6th: 1-3 on a d6; 7th - 9th: 1-4 on a d6; 10th+: 1-5 on a d6). This way spell slots aren't wasted on these spells. Not "new school" per se, but another way to skin this cat perhaps.
One of my rainy day goals is to rewrite the classes in general. One idea is to give each class certain d6 abilities usable at will more or less (subject to some reasonable interval for retrying when a check is failed in a particular situation, maybe a day). For magic-users, it would be the ability to read or detect magic on 1-2 on a d6, and then have it scale with level (maybe 4th - 6th: 1-3 on a d6; 7th - 9th: 1-4 on a d6; 10th+: 1-5 on a d6). This way spell slots aren't wasted on these spells. Not "new school" per se, but another way to skin this cat perhaps.
Target 20
I agree with (and learned from) delta: Target 20 is the way to go: and it makes sense of why armor class descended in the first place.
I agree with (and learned from) delta: Target 20 is the way to go: and it makes sense of why armor class descended in the first place.
Advantage/Disadvantage applied to HPs
I take the advantage / disadvantage only for rolling initial hit points (2d6 take best roll) and for all fighting-man hit point rolls.
I take the advantage / disadvantage only for rolling initial hit points (2d6 take best roll) and for all fighting-man hit point rolls.
Ritual Magic
Ritual Magic: 1 turn + (100 gp/spell level) to cast certain spells (e.g. light, read magic, detect magic, etc.).
That's the simple version of my rule, forex there are limitations to how often ritual magic can be used, but it has worked well in play.
Ritual Magic: 1 turn + (100 gp/spell level) to cast certain spells (e.g. light, read magic, detect magic, etc.).
That's the simple version of my rule, forex there are limitations to how often ritual magic can be used, but it has worked well in play.
Advantage/Disadvantage
Another Version
I use that rule most of the time instead of modifiers to the roll. For especially easy or hard tasks (or when you have really good or bad tools, for example) I even rule "double Ad" or "double Dis", then you roll 3d20 and use the best or worst.
Another Version
I use that rule most of the time instead of modifiers to the roll. For especially easy or hard tasks (or when you have really good or bad tools, for example) I even rule "double Ad" or "double Dis", then you roll 3d20 and use the best or worst.
HP
FM get maximum HP at first level, Clerics (and Rogues/Thieves, if present) roll "with advantage" (2d6 drop lowest) and MU's roll 1d6, re-roll 1's.
FM get maximum HP at first level, Clerics (and Rogues/Thieves, if present) roll "with advantage" (2d6 drop lowest) and MU's roll 1d6, re-roll 1's.
Rest & Healing
I used a system similar to the Cypher System (Numenera etc.), allowing a roll immediately after combat, another after 10 minutes, another after a short rest (at least 1 hour) and the next after a long rest (at least 8 hours). Regain 1d6+CON mod per roll. This was mostly done to avoid extensive resting phases during adventures and allow spell-casters to recover more quickly
I used a system similar to the Cypher System (Numenera etc.), allowing a roll immediately after combat, another after 10 minutes, another after a short rest (at least 1 hour) and the next after a long rest (at least 8 hours). Regain 1d6+CON mod per roll. This was mostly done to avoid extensive resting phases during adventures and allow spell-casters to recover more quickly
Initiative
Everyone rolls, with some adjustments:
If you're using a two-handed (heavy) weapon, you roll with disadvantage (2d6 drop lowest) when fighting in tight spaces.
Using heavy armor also means disadvantage on initiative rolls.
Using no armor grants advantage to initiative rolls.
Everyone rolls, with some adjustments:
If you're using a two-handed (heavy) weapon, you roll with disadvantage (2d6 drop lowest) when fighting in tight spaces.
Using heavy armor also means disadvantage on initiative rolls.
Using no armor grants advantage to initiative rolls.
Weapons and Damage
Light weapons like daggers can be easily concealed and you can use your DEX modifier to attack. They do 1d6 damage.
Medium weapons like swords and clubs use STR modifier to attack and do 1d6 damage.
Heavy weapons require two hands to be used (no shield) but roll damage with advantage (2d6 drop lowest).
Light weapons like daggers can be easily concealed and you can use your DEX modifier to attack. They do 1d6 damage.
Medium weapons like swords and clubs use STR modifier to attack and do 1d6 damage.
Heavy weapons require two hands to be used (no shield) but roll damage with advantage (2d6 drop lowest).
Spells
That's something I experiment a lot with, because I've never come to like the spell system, especially at low levels. I feel it restrains MU's, especially at lower levels, and some spells just never get prepared and used. Personally, I found playing MU's rather boring at the first levels, as you can rarely even use magic. So here's what I used last time:
Similarly to Fin, I allowed a generic ranged attack spell "cantrip" which can be cast without limit but rolls damage with disadvantage. It requires a to-hit roll. A similar attack can be made as a melee attack, which does regular 1d6 damage (mostly just fluff, except for monster immunities or resistances).
And here's the major overhaul, in short:
Spells can be prepared as usual, but you can still cast spells if they're unprepared (see below).
Prepared spells can be cast by expending a number of HP equal to the spell's level.
Unprepared spells cost double that amount of HP.
Any spell can be cast from the traveling spell book as a ritual taking 1 turn per spell level (this is intended to allow castings of Read Magic and similar spells more freely).
This makes spell-casters more powerful at higher levels, but so far we've rarely come to these levels.
That's something I experiment a lot with, because I've never come to like the spell system, especially at low levels. I feel it restrains MU's, especially at lower levels, and some spells just never get prepared and used. Personally, I found playing MU's rather boring at the first levels, as you can rarely even use magic. So here's what I used last time:
Similarly to Fin, I allowed a generic ranged attack spell "cantrip" which can be cast without limit but rolls damage with disadvantage. It requires a to-hit roll. A similar attack can be made as a melee attack, which does regular 1d6 damage (mostly just fluff, except for monster immunities or resistances).
And here's the major overhaul, in short:
Spells can be prepared as usual, but you can still cast spells if they're unprepared (see below).
Prepared spells can be cast by expending a number of HP equal to the spell's level.
Unprepared spells cost double that amount of HP.
Any spell can be cast from the traveling spell book as a ritual taking 1 turn per spell level (this is intended to allow castings of Read Magic and similar spells more freely).
This makes spell-casters more powerful at higher levels, but so far we've rarely come to these levels.
All Humanoid Races are Playable
All Humanoid Races are Playable — I never liked the stock Tolkien races, nor did I ever liked being limited to only "good" races. Plus, members of my family like playing Tabaxi/Rakasta-type catfolk. Races that are too powerful off-the-bat suffer greater EXP costs to advance levels.
All Humanoid Races are Playable — I never liked the stock Tolkien races, nor did I ever liked being limited to only "good" races. Plus, members of my family like playing Tabaxi/Rakasta-type catfolk. Races that are too powerful off-the-bat suffer greater EXP costs to advance levels.
No Level Caps for Non-Human Races
No Level Caps for Non-Human Races — To me, this is redundant, as characters should be able to advanced as far as they can go.
No Level Caps for Non-Human Races — To me, this is redundant, as characters should be able to advanced as far as they can go.
No Bonus EXP for High/Low Attributes
No Bonus EXP for High/Low Attributes — Having a high score is a boon into itself.
No Bonus EXP for High/Low Attributes — Having a high score is a boon into itself.
Maximum HP at 1st Level
Maximum HP at 1st Level — Cuz starting a game with one or two hit points SUCKS! Characters still need to roll-up auxiliary characters, but now the players don't have to jump characters... as often.
Maximum HP at 1st Level — Cuz starting a game with one or two hit points SUCKS! Characters still need to roll-up auxiliary characters, but now the players don't have to jump characters... as often.
Alternate to AAC and to DAC
Ascending AC — I was never a fan of it. Having to write the array on the PC sheets; having to keep looking on a table when I can just roll over the AC score; not having to do the backwards math on a THAC0 score to derive a number. It is so simple: Use the to-hit scores at 1st level and apply to-hit bonuses! Why did they not do this from the jump!? Although, to me, the level bonuses for to-hit are redundant; see below:
Ascending AC — I was never a fan of it. Having to write the array on the PC sheets; having to keep looking on a table when I can just roll over the AC score; not having to do the backwards math on a THAC0 score to derive a number. It is so simple: Use the to-hit scores at 1st level and apply to-hit bonuses! Why did they not do this from the jump!? Although, to me, the level bonuses for to-hit are redundant; see below:
More Attacks and Extra Damage Dice at Higher Levels
More Attacks and Extra Damage Dice at Higher Levels —It never made sense to me that characters have a ton of hit points but only a single attack die per turn at high levels. High-level Fighters should be able to take-down large monsters or mobs with less effort. (every time a character improves his/her ability to-hit while leveling, by B/X standards, the character gets an extra attack & damage die) Also, magic weapons provide a bonus damage die per +1 bonus, so a sword +1, +5 vs dragons in low-level hands would normally do 2d8 damage, or 6d8 vs dragons! (Although, I like to keep magic items rare and unusual.)
More Attacks and Extra Damage Dice at Higher Levels —It never made sense to me that characters have a ton of hit points but only a single attack die per turn at high levels. High-level Fighters should be able to take-down large monsters or mobs with less effort. (every time a character improves his/her ability to-hit while leveling, by B/X standards, the character gets an extra attack & damage die) Also, magic weapons provide a bonus damage die per +1 bonus, so a sword +1, +5 vs dragons in low-level hands would normally do 2d8 damage, or 6d8 vs dragons! (Although, I like to keep magic items rare and unusual.)
Faster Natural Healing
Faster Natural Healing — Waiting weeks for a character to recover HP is boring! I want to play in a pulp fantasy setting; not some gritty, dysentery-loving Oregon Trail-like setting! As long as the characters can get back into action without a magic-healing dependency, than I am content! Characters gain some HP with food and rest, and fully recover over night.
Faster Natural Healing — Waiting weeks for a character to recover HP is boring! I want to play in a pulp fantasy setting; not some gritty, dysentery-loving Oregon Trail-like setting! As long as the characters can get back into action without a magic-healing dependency, than I am content! Characters gain some HP with food and rest, and fully recover over night.
Spell Points or Casting Rolls
Spell Points or Casting Rolls — I was never a fan of Vancian spell casting. If a character know a spell, he/she should be able to cast it freely, with some limitations, and not have to spend all morning re-memorizing old spells. Although, due to the dark fantasy nature of my games, I like to make Spell Point recovery cost in blood or time-consuming rituals, and to avoid simple cantrip effects. The use of Spell Points or Casting Rolls is based on what works at the time.
Spell Points or Casting Rolls — I was never a fan of Vancian spell casting. If a character know a spell, he/she should be able to cast it freely, with some limitations, and not have to spend all morning re-memorizing old spells. Although, due to the dark fantasy nature of my games, I like to make Spell Point recovery cost in blood or time-consuming rituals, and to avoid simple cantrip effects. The use of Spell Points or Casting Rolls is based on what works at the time.
Personal Characteristics and Fate Points
Personal Characteristics and Fate Points — I really like 5th edition's Personal Characteristics rule as a prime mover for character action and motivation. It keeps some players from playing erratically as they have a carrot-on-a-stick of their own choosing. By maintaining the character's personal motivations/habits/phobias, a player is rewarded with Fate Points that maybe spent to effect dice rolls or fudge the plot or some in-game element in some minor way. Anything to get away form mindless hack-n-slash gaming.
Personal Characteristics and Fate Points — I really like 5th edition's Personal Characteristics rule as a prime mover for character action and motivation. It keeps some players from playing erratically as they have a carrot-on-a-stick of their own choosing. By maintaining the character's personal motivations/habits/phobias, a player is rewarded with Fate Points that maybe spent to effect dice rolls or fudge the plot or some in-game element in some minor way. Anything to get away form mindless hack-n-slash gaming.
No EXP for Earned GPs and Alternate
In the past, it was a hard No EXP for Earned GPs, but ever since I discovered that old rule Arneson used where characters actually had to spend the GP on non-adventuring activities to get the EXP, I was hooked. To me, this gets characters to loose their hard-earned gold on wine and woman, which it turn, motivates them to go on another adventure. Plus, without this rule, EXP would be based on hack-n-slash and arbitrary EXP bonuses for "Character Actions" that was common in 2e AD&D products.
In the past, it was a hard No EXP for Earned GPs, but ever since I discovered that old rule Arneson used where characters actually had to spend the GP on non-adventuring activities to get the EXP, I was hooked. To me, this gets characters to loose their hard-earned gold on wine and woman, which it turn, motivates them to go on another adventure. Plus, without this rule, EXP would be based on hack-n-slash and arbitrary EXP bonuses for "Character Actions" that was common in 2e AD&D products.
Secondary Skills
With just a little tinkering, the Career system from Barbarians of Lemuria makes a fast, flexible mechanic for secondary skills.
With just a little tinkering, the Career system from Barbarians of Lemuria makes a fast, flexible mechanic for secondary skills.
Advantage/Disadvantage
Advantage/Disadvantage is one that I use for Reaction Table rolls (which I use for attribute checks and the aforementioned secondary skills as well as social reactions.)
Advantage/Disadvantage is one that I use for Reaction Table rolls (which I use for attribute checks and the aforementioned secondary skills as well as social reactions.)
D30 Rule
D30 Rule by Jeff Rients
D30 Rule by Jeff Rients
Inspired by a thread on the EN World forums, I have decided to get some use out of my beloved d30.
Once per session each person at the table (DM included) may roll a d30 instead of whatever die or dice the situation normally warrants. The decision to use the d30 must be made before the roll. If used for an attack roll, the threat range is extended from the normal range through to 30.
Why do we need this rule? We don't. I'm simply a mad-with-power house-rulin' fool!
Once per session each person at the table (DM included) may roll a d30 instead of whatever die or dice the situation normally warrants. The decision to use the d30 must be made before the roll. If used for an attack roll, the threat range is extended from the normal range through to 30.
Why do we need this rule? We don't. I'm simply a mad-with-power house-rulin' fool!
No Alignments:
No Alignments: I so ignore this one, I often forget its a thing! I like my games morally ambiguous.
No Alignments: I so ignore this one, I often forget its a thing! I like my games morally ambiguous.
Classes vs Archetypes:
Classes vs Archetypes: (I know this is not at all "new-school", but the original intention of what "classes" where, I add this to highlight the next topic.) I like to make "Classes" broad characterizations of what they are good at and how they approach situations. The Classes I like to use are the Warrior (Fighting-Man), Magic-User, and Rogue (Thief). "Archetypes" are more specific types of characters to help round them out similar to D&D Paladins and 2e AD&D "Kits", with each providing additional benefits and some downsides for playing. For example, a "Warrior" could be an Amazon, a Barbarian, a Knight, a Mercenary, a Bodyguard, etc. Backgrounds further round-out a character.
Clerics are Banned:
Clerics are Banned: I was never fan of the Cleric class. I always felt that being an agent for a deity should be not class into itself. Instead, I use archetypes related to worship. There are: Warrior-Priests (Warriors); Priests, Shamans and Druids (Magic-Users); Cultists and Sacred Prostitutes (both Rogues). Much like "Turn the Undead", Priests need to roll to see if they can call for divine aid. Also, I absolutely hate Paladins. They have no place in my games! When I find myself playing a Paladin, I will have them do questionable (or all out terrible) things while justify his actions through obfuscating logic. (e.g. "Yes, I slaughtered the baby Orcs for 'the greater good'!"; "I don't see how it can be seen as 'abuse' when slaves are just property?")
Clerics are Banned: I was never fan of the Cleric class. I always felt that being an agent for a deity should be not class into itself. Instead, I use archetypes related to worship. There are: Warrior-Priests (Warriors); Priests, Shamans and Druids (Magic-Users); Cultists and Sacred Prostitutes (both Rogues). Much like "Turn the Undead", Priests need to roll to see if they can call for divine aid. Also, I absolutely hate Paladins. They have no place in my games! When I find myself playing a Paladin, I will have them do questionable (or all out terrible) things while justify his actions through obfuscating logic. (e.g. "Yes, I slaughtered the baby Orcs for 'the greater good'!"; "I don't see how it can be seen as 'abuse' when slaves are just property?")
Scout Not Ranger:
Scout Not Ranger: I never liked the tree-hugger D&D Ranger (more over, the the duel-wielding-scimitar-ranger that was made famous by a certain mopey Dark Elf). 5e made a Scout class that is a better "Ranger" than the official Ranger. And before that, Conan (Mongoose Publishing) had an even better Ranger called the Borderer. In both cases, they were not Fighters that were also spell-using mystics with an familiar-like animal companion and an oath to be "The Guardians of Nature", but are all-out rugged outdoor fighting-men and survivalists. To me, THAT is a Ranger!
Scout Not Ranger: I never liked the tree-hugger D&D Ranger (more over, the the duel-wielding-scimitar-ranger that was made famous by a certain mopey Dark Elf). 5e made a Scout class that is a better "Ranger" than the official Ranger. And before that, Conan (Mongoose Publishing) had an even better Ranger called the Borderer. In both cases, they were not Fighters that were also spell-using mystics with an familiar-like animal companion and an oath to be "The Guardians of Nature", but are all-out rugged outdoor fighting-men and survivalists. To me, THAT is a Ranger!
A Game of Stilettos & Seduction:
A Game of Stilettos & Seduction: This is not "new-school" per se, but something that felt missing or underutilized since the birth of D&D. In Judge's Guild, it had a class called the Houri that was only used for the Wilderlands Fantasy and largely looked-over in D&D (save for the Heartwarder). It is was not until third-party v3 games like Conan, with its Temptress class, and Scarred Lands, with its Courtesan of Idra prestige class where such a class gets notice as a playable option. To me, "fantasy" feels boring and incomplete without a side of sexy. I always have Charisma-basedclass- archetype-options, this is not exclusively a Bard. The Courtesan/Mountebank is a Rogue archetype, and it good at assessing people, seduction, fast-talk, disguising, info-gathering, picking-pockets, smoke & mirror "magic" tricks, and the like. Likewise, the Sacred Prostitute archetype is both a Courtesan and Priestess for some love and/or fertility goddess. Much like Willy in The Temple of Doom, this archetype is more geared towards urban-based adventures than in some murky jungle or dank dungeon.
A Game of Stilettos & Seduction: This is not "new-school" per se, but something that felt missing or underutilized since the birth of D&D. In Judge's Guild, it had a class called the Houri that was only used for the Wilderlands Fantasy and largely looked-over in D&D (save for the Heartwarder). It is was not until third-party v3 games like Conan, with its Temptress class, and Scarred Lands, with its Courtesan of Idra prestige class where such a class gets notice as a playable option. To me, "fantasy" feels boring and incomplete without a side of sexy. I always have Charisma-based
Can you imagine what her gaming group must be like, no it is too horrible to contemplate.
