OD&D Classes and What Changes Would You Make

[True Black Raven]

Now in the realm of house rules, if you were to look at the OD&D Classes, what change would you make to one or more of them and are there any classes that you would add and what would they be (and be about).

Any Changes to these?

Fighting-Men
Magic-Users
Clerics
Thief
Paladin
Ranger
Assassin
Ranger
Druid
Monk
Bard
Illusionist

Any additions to the above?

[Hexenritter Verlag]

As I mentioned in the other thread, i'd change the Percentile based Thief Skills used by the Thief, Assassin & Monk (possibly Ranger?). BTW what pages & what books are the Ranger & Illusionist found?

[robkuntz]

I added an Elementalist in Sir Robilar's City of Brass.

In my own World of Kalibruhn I also have specific sects of MU's, Fighters and Priests, all with their own spells, powers or abilities and histories.  This creates lots of leeway for what they generally and specifically know, what they can learn, and what their specific thrusts are in relation to a specific histories and/or environment.  Their purpose is thus in relation to the holistic world concept rather than being related to the generalized game.

[Deleted]

I wish more people did that. Tekumel had Magic-Rich and Magic-Poor areas. Why don't more people's D&D worlds have areas where magic is stronger, or weaker, or works entirely differently from the base system? What does a Vancian style caster do when they're in an area where the magic is concentrated in ley lines? Let's find out!

Short answer is a significant number of Magic-User players would cry like a little girl.

[Hexenritter Verlag]

Jun 14, 2018 14:13:05 GMT -5 @gronanofsimmerya said:

I wish more people did that. Tekumel had Magic-Rich and Magic-Poor areas. Why don't more people's D&D worlds have areas where magic is stronger, or weaker, or works entirely differently from the base system? What does a Vancian style caster do when they're in an area where the magic is concentrated in ley lines? Let's find out!

Short answer is a significant number of Magic-User players would cry like a little girl.

Definitely something to explore as I develop my worlds.

[ripx187]

You've got your four basic classes which one uses to start the game. This covers a huge variety of jobs, I know that 2e had this kit system which was kind of fun but we slowly abandoned it. A fighting man and a knight are the same things as a thug or an archer, it just depends on how the player plays that character. The kits added bonuses and junk, but once you get to understand the art of role-playing, you don't need them. They get in the way. In later editions, they also caused a language barrier. You ask somebody who played 4th edition about their character and they will start talking in this odd language. Nobody seemed to know that they were still just playing a wizard, and would get offended by suggesting such a thing.


I think that what I am going to do is just start players with only the four basic classes and go from there. If a fighter discovers a Ranger in the game, then they have to make a choice. If they really want to be a ranger too, they have to be trained for it, dropping back to 1st level Ranger. 


I never did like how the rules given to the players forced the DM into having specific races and classes in the game. The Paladin, for instance, is a very specific thing and implies many things to a setting. It is also an attractive class for players. I mean, I love playing them! But do they match up with a world of petty gods? Maybe at some point, but I do like the idea of them being ultra rare, and probably not very well received by the public as this is a change in religion. Beefed up multiclass classes should be found through exploration and discovery.


I also want to add a class based off of witchcraft, one that blends wizardry with priest spells. Maybe more of a VooDoo inspired system where it isn't the character casting the spells, but specific spirits who must be summoned? I started to design the system once but abandoned it as the player who was going to play-test it for me had to quit the club. I still want it, if not only for Monster NPCs. The idea of an orc shaman with teeth is something that I really want to explore.

[robkuntz]

Jun 14, 2018 17:04:59 GMT -5 ripx187 said:

You've got your four basic classes which one uses to start the game. This covers a huge variety of jobs, I know that 2e had this kit system which was kind of fun but we slowly abandoned it. A fighting man and a knight are the same things as a thug or an archer, it just depends on how the player plays that character. The kits added bonuses and junk, but once you get to understand the art of role-playing, you don't need them. They get in the way. In later editions, they also caused a language barrier. You ask somebody who played 4th edition about their character and they will start talking in this odd language. Nobody seemed to know that they were still just playing a wizard, and would get offended by suggesting such a thing.


I think that what I am going to do is just start players with only the four basic classes and go from there. If a fighter discovers a Ranger in the game, then they have to make a choice. If they really want to be a ranger too, they have to be trained for it, dropping back to 1st level Ranger. 


I never did like how the rules given to the players forced the DM into having specific races and classes in the game. The Paladin, for instance, is a very specific thing and implies many things to a setting. It is also an attractive class for players. I mean, I love playing them! But do they match up with a world of petty gods? Maybe at some point, but I do like the idea of them being ultra rare, and probably not very well received by the public as this is a change in religion. Beefed up multiclass classes should be found through exploration and discovery.


I also want to add a class based off of witchcraft, one that blends wizardry with priest spells. Maybe more of a VooDoo inspired system where it isn't the character casting the spells, but specific spirits who must be summoned? I started to design the system once but abandoned it as the player who was going to play-test it for me had to quit the club. I still want it, if not only for Monster NPCs. The idea of an orc shaman with teeth is something that I really want to explore.

As you have correctly sensed (and what I sensed as far back as the play-tests) is that D&D is a roiling mass of disparate elements all thrown together to make a game "work".  It is, and has always been in my estimation, an agglomeration of so many incongruent things that I resolved early to design my world Top Down and jettison all of this shoe-horned together "stuff."  The base structure is KEY to D&D; the base elements that appoint that structure are not.

[Hexenritter Verlag]

Jun 14, 2018 17:04:59 GMT -5 ripx187 said:

You've got your four basic classes which one uses to start the game. This covers a huge variety of jobs, I know that 2e had this kit system which was kind of fun but we slowly abandoned it. A fighting man and a knight are the same things as a thug or an archer, it just depends on how the player plays that character. The kits added bonuses and junk, but once you get to understand the art of role-playing, you don't need them. They get in the way. In later editions, they also caused a language barrier. You ask somebody who played 4th edition about their character and they will start talking in this odd language. Nobody seemed to know that they were still just playing a wizard, and would get offended by suggesting such a thing.


I think that what I am going to do is just start players with only the four basic classes and go from there. If a fighter discovers a Ranger in the game, then they have to make a choice. If they really want to be a ranger too, they have to be trained for it, dropping back to 1st level Ranger. 


I never did like how the rules given to the players forced the DM into having specific races and classes in the game. The Paladin, for instance, is a very specific thing and implies many things to a setting. It is also an attractive class for players. I mean, I love playing them! But do they match up with a world of petty gods? Maybe at some point, but I do like the idea of them being ultra rare, and probably not very well received by the public as this is a change in religion. Beefed up multiclass classes should be found through exploration and discovery.


I also want to add a class based off of witchcraft, one that blends wizardry with priest spells. Maybe more of a VooDoo inspired system where it isn't the character casting the spells, but specific spirits who must be summoned? I started to design the system once but abandoned it as the player who was going to play-test it for me had to quit the club. I still want it, if not only for Monster NPCs. The idea of an orc shaman with teeth is something that I really want to explore.

I love this post ripx187 , it is kind of what I want for my face-to-face games once I find a new group. I'm not sure I'll include Paladins (glorified Knightly Clerics or Fighter-Clerics in my book) or Rangers (at least the magic using kind), they be "Thief" with D6 based Skills & some traditional Ranger dressing. I do like Sorcerers & Witches melding M-U & Cleric Magic. I'll be having a Priest class that is basically a M-U with access to Cleric spells & Turn Undead. 

Update: ripx187 earns an exalt!

[ripx187]

Thanks Hexenritter Verlag.


I think that my idea of what a ranger is is different from the excepted norm, as it is very basic. A ranger to me is very Tolkien, he can track, and hunt quietly but I don't know where those spells come from. If anything, it would be herbalism. AD&D 2nd Edition had a chance for spell failure, but I don't feel that it was very strict at all, especially for a ranger who might apply a freshly made paste to a wound. For this class I think that it would make more sense to do away with the spell system completely, and just use a d6 skill system.

[dragondaddy]

I really liked the thief class from Caltech's Warlock, with the additional special thieving abilities they gained at each level, so I added them for my regular D&D games.

I really like having unique wizards with unique spells, and have added several special class wizards, who progress at the same xp levels as regular wizards, and gain spells at the same rate as a regular wizard, but have access to additional different and unique spells.

Mist Wizard

=========================================

Enchanted Fog and Mist Based Spells

Spell - Lvl

=========================================
Fog of Blood Wiz1
Fog of Cold Wiz1
Mists of Confusion Wiz2
Fog of Dissolution Wiz2
Mists of Lightning Wiz3
Mists of Sleep Wiz3
Ground Fog - Trigger Spell Wiz4
Blademist Wiz4
Fog of Darkness Wiz5
Songmist - Mist of Voices Wiz5
Mist of Entanglement - Slows Targets Wiz 5
Fog of Disorientation Wiz6
Dimension Mist - Wiz 6 Teleports
Mist of Anti-Magic Wiz7
Mist of Wizardry - Mist of Magic Draining - Wiz 8
Mist of Forgetfulness - Affects Skills and Feats - Wiz 9

=========================================

I have Water Wizards, Earth Wizards, Fire Wizards, and Air Wizards too, as well as Shamans and Spiritualists or Spirit Summoners.

[Hexenritter Verlag]

Jun 14, 2018 20:15:02 GMT -5 ripx187 said:

Thanks Hexenritter Verlag .


I think that my idea of what a ranger is is different from the excepted norm, as it is very basic. A ranger to me is very Tolkien, he can track, and hunt quietly but I don't know where those spells come from. If anything, it would be herbalism. AD&D 2nd Edition had a chance for spell failure, but I don't feel that it was very strict at all, especially for a ranger who might apply a freshly made paste to a wound. For this class I think that it would make more sense to do away with the spell system completely, and just use a d6 skill system.

I agree I never understood the magical ranger - it seemed like a woodland version of the paladin for the Druid, like the Paladin is for the cleric. It is funny you never saw Aragorn cast spells, I think he healed some in the last book by laying on hands (Been so long i might be wrong) in the last book Return of the King. I like your version ripx187.

[Hexenritter Verlag]

Jun 14, 2018 20:28:19 GMT -5 dragondaddy said:

I really liked the thief class from Caltech's Warlock, with the additional special thieving abilities they gained at each level, so I added them for my regular D&D games.

I really like having unique wizards with unique spells, and have added several special class wizards, who progress at the same xp levels as regular wizards, and gain spells at the same rate as a regular wizard, but have access to additional different and unique spells.

Mist Wizard

=========================================

Enchanted Fog and Mist Based Spells

Spell - Lvl

=========================================
Fog of Blood Wiz1
Fog of Cold Wiz1
Mists of Confusion Wiz2
Fog of Dissolution Wiz2
Mists of Lightning Wiz3
Mists of Sleep Wiz3
Ground Fog - Trigger Spell Wiz4
Blademist Wiz4
Fog of Darkness Wiz5
Songmist - Mist of Voices Wiz5
Mist of Entanglement - Slows Targets Wiz 5
Fog of Disorientation Wiz6
Dimension Mist - Wiz 6 Teleports
Mist of Anti-Magic Wiz7
Mist of Wizardry - Mist of Magic Draining - Wiz 8
Mist of Forgetfulness - Affects Skills and Feats - Wiz 9

=========================================

I have Water Wizards, Earth Wizards, Fire Wizards, and Air Wizards too, as well as Shamans and Spiritualists or Spirit Summoners.

This would drive the "Play by the Book" types nuts, but i like it - it kind of reminds me of howspell lists work to a degree in Rolemaster - each spell list is themed with spells often being higher powered versions of previous spells, basically - at said level you cast the same spell just improved in power. HARP improved the concept a bit, but I am blathering. I'll need to check that out a bit more later. 

[Deleted]

Problems with the Paladin go away if you require players to roll 3d6 in order 6 times. At that point Paladins are so rare that if one ever does come along, they are truly extraordinary.

Of course, as Rob knows, I love the myths and legends of chivalry, so Paladins fit in my world just fine.

[Deleted]

Jun 14, 2018 20:15:02 GMT -5 ripx187 said:

Thanks Hexenritter Verlag .


I think that my idea of what a ranger is is different from the excepted norm, as it is very basic. A ranger to me is very Tolkien, he can track, and hunt quietly but I don't know where those spells come from. If anything, it would be herbalism. AD&D 2nd Edition had a chance for spell failure, but I don't feel that it was very strict at all, especially for a ranger who might apply a freshly made paste to a wound. For this class I think that it would make more sense to do away with the spell system completely, and just use a d6 skill system.

The original OD&D Ranger was written up by an 18 year old kid.

I don't know what happened later.

And again, if you're rolling 3d6 in order 6 times, you don't have a lot of rangers to worry about.

[Deleted]

Jun 14, 2018 19:21:51 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

As you have correctly sensed (and what I sensed as far back as the play-tests) is that D&D is a roiling mass of disparate elements all thrown together to make a game "work".  It is, and has always been in my estimation, an agglomeration of so many incongruent things that I resolved early to design my world Top Down and jettison all of this shoe-horned together "stuff."  The base structure is KEY to D&D; the base elements that appoint that structure are not.

I agree.  But I think a big part of the problem is also that not enough referees say "no."  Don't like paladins/rangers/man-eating-frogs whatever?

Just say no.

[Deleted]

Jun 14, 2018 17:04:59 GMT -5 ripx187 said:

I never did like how the rules given to the players forced the DM into having specific races and classes in the game.

But, you see... they don't.

The referee ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS has the right to say "Not in my campaign."

[robkuntz]

Jun 14, 2018 22:03:57 GMT -5 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Jun 14, 2018 19:21:51 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

As you have correctly sensed (and what I sensed as far back as the play-tests) is that D&D is a roiling mass of disparate elements all thrown together to make a game "work".  It is, and has always been in my estimation, an agglomeration of so many incongruent things that I resolved early to design my world Top Down and jettison all of this shoe-horned together "stuff."  The base structure is KEY to D&D; the base elements that appoint that structure are not.

I agree.  But I think a big part of the problem is also that not enough referees say "no."  Don't like paladins/rangers/man-eating-frogs whatever?

Just say no.

Actually, I will slightly disagree.  Gary wanted this.  He did remind DMs in OD&D to create new Laws and such, but he just did not go far enough with the examples of why (thus he game proceeded the world, or BOTTOM UP design).  As D&D became a hit he just added to the incongruity of amalgamated parts, to the point to where this hodge-podge approach, in Forgotten Realms for instance, where you have a city of hundreds of thousands of people with monsters, like bands of ogres, living right outside of it, etc. This is just one glaring example of Fantasy taken to the heights of absurdity, throwing all congruity to the winds for entertainment only,  Strange, too, for the myths and legends and Fantasy stories, all of these which D&D was based upon, are more congruous, more believable, than many D&D games and campaigns that I've witnessed and that supposedly "emulate" them.  Thus I really believe that Top Down design is the way to go, or at the very least, a well planned and incrementally staged bottom-up approach.  Gary was on track with that through WoGreyhawk and to me that was exciting, as it would have eventually allowed for what I had been suggesting all along, an ordering of PC Classes/Spells/Monster information between the world and the game, just as he had in WoG ordered migration, the heavens above, etc (which I had already been doing with World of Kalibruhn).

[Admin Pete]

I have done some re-writing of some of these elsewhere on the site. The biggest thing I did was with Paladins. Instead of starting at first level as a Paladin, at fourth level there was a choice/calling to Paladinhood. Fighting Men could become a Paladin of the Sword, Clerics could become Paladins of the Mace and Dwarves could become Paladins of the Axe. By doing so I also added Maces and Axes as very rare Intelligent weapons to the game, but only as something usable by the appropriate Paladin.

[Admin Pete]

As far as what other classes or changes I would make, it has been some time since I gave that much thought. Perhaps later this summer I will do that if I get a "Round Tuit."

[Hexenritter Verlag]

Jun 15, 2018 10:30:09 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

I have done some re-writing of some of these elsewhere on the site. The biggest thing I did was with Paladins. Instead of starting at first level as a Paladin, at fourth level there was a choice/calling to Paladinhood. Fighting Men could become a Paladin of the Sword, Clerics could become Paladins of the Mace and Dwarves could become Paladins of the Axe. By doing so I also added Maces and Axes as very rare Intelligent weapons to the game, but only as something usable by the appropriate Paladin.

Oh, i like that kind of Template approach. Did they get Paladin abilities of some sort?

[Deleted]

Jun 15, 2018 4:41:28 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

Jun 14, 2018 22:03:57 GMT -5 @gronanofsimmerya said:

I agree.  But I think a big part of the problem is also that not enough referees say "no."  Don't like paladins/rangers/man-eating-frogs whatever?

Just say no.

Actually, I will slightly disagree.  Gary wanted this.  He did remind DMs in OD&D to create new Laws and such, but he just did not go far enough with the examples of why (thus he game proceeded the world, or BOTTOM UP design).  As D&D became a hit he just added to the incongruity of amalgamated parts, to the point to where this hodge-podge approach, in Forgotten Realms for instance, where you have a city of hundreds of thousands of people with monsters, like bands of ogres, living right outside of it, etc. This is just one glaring example of Fantasy taken to the heights of absurdity, throwing all congruity to the winds for entertainment only,  Strange, too, for the myths and legends and Fantasy stories, all of these which D&D was based upon, are more congruous, more believable, than many D&D games and campaigns that I've witnessed and that supposedly "emulate" them.  Thus I really believe that Top Down design is the way to go, or at the very least, a well planned and incrementally staged bottom-up approach.  Gary was on track with that through WoGreyhawk and to me that was exciting, as it would have eventually allowed for what I had been suggesting all along, an ordering of PC Classes/Spells/Monster information between the world and the game, just as he had in WoG ordered migration, the heavens above, etc (which I had already been doing with World of Kalibruhn).

Again I agree, while maintaining that not all the rules in the world can give a referee a backbone, which was my point.  The extreme of this is that I have seen a surprisingly sizeable population of gamers who say that the referee has to do what the players want, even taking it as far as "the referee can't kill my PC without my permission."

Or Skip Williams stating publicly that one of the goals of 3rd edition D&D was "rules to protect players from the arbitrary whims of the DM."  Or maybe the players should ****ing learn to play.

It is ridiculous, but amazingly prevalent in some quarters.  There is a sizeable contingent of the entertainment portion of this hobby that wants to turn the referee into a mere rules parser.

[robkuntz]

Jun 15, 2018 14:16:23 GMT -5 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Jun 15, 2018 4:41:28 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

Actually, I will slightly disagree.  Gary wanted this.  He did remind DMs in OD&D to create new Laws and such, but he just did not go far enough with the examples of why (thus he game proceeded the world, or BOTTOM UP design).  As D&D became a hit he just added to the incongruity of amalgamated parts, to the point to where this hodge-podge approach, in Forgotten Realms for instance, where you have a city of hundreds of thousands of people with monsters, like bands of ogres, living right outside of it, etc. This is just one glaring example of Fantasy taken to the heights of absurdity, throwing all congruity to the winds for entertainment only,  Strange, too, for the myths and legends and Fantasy stories, all of these which D&D was based upon, are more congruous, more believable, than many D&D games and campaigns that I've witnessed and that supposedly "emulate" them.  Thus I really believe that Top Down design is the way to go, or at the very least, a well planned and incrementally staged bottom-up approach.  Gary was on track with that through WoGreyhawk and to me that was exciting, as it would have eventually allowed for what I had been suggesting all along, an ordering of PC Classes/Spells/Monster information between the world and the game, just as he had in WoG ordered migration, the heavens above, etc (which I had already been doing with World of Kalibruhn).

Again I agree, while maintaining that not all the rules in the world can give a referee a backbone, which was my point.  The extreme of this is that I have seen a surprisingly sizeable population of gamers who say that the referee has to do what the players want, even taking it as far as "the referee can't kill my PC without my permission."

Or Skip Williams stating publicly that one of the goals of 3rd edition D&D was "rules to protect players from the arbitrary whims of the DM."  Or maybe the players should ****ing learn to play.

It is ridiculous, but amazingly prevalent in some quarters.  There is a sizeable contingent of the entertainment portion of this hobby that wants to turn the referee into a mere rules parser.

Well your last point addresses the red herring thrown out there to explain away the simple fact that the game--like computer games--should favor the self-entitled player, whatever the case. See, in most computer games you always win, whether through the save game function or by having that designed in, up front.  The idea of losing, as you pointed out elsewhere, had become an alien concept due to this; and there it is mirrored in our now largely meritless based society of gimmee-dats...

My larger point is that if you are serious about constructing a sensible world (like Barker did, like I did) then you must invest the time to do so.  If not, deal with the matter as you feel is best.  I solved that by making it my own.  I own its structure; the game rules do not. But then I had a head start with all of that...

[antoine]

Well, if you accept races as classes in D&D, I made this change about the elf :

I ask the player: what color is your elf?

A white elf only casts cleric spells.
A grey elf only casts bard spells (or illusionnist).
A black elf only casts M-U spells (as per the rules).
A green elf only casts druid spells.
A purple elf only casts necromancer spells.

[Deleted]

Jun 15, 2018 14:52:11 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

My larger point is that if you are serious about constructing a sensible world (like Barker did, like I did) then you must invest the time to do so.  If not, deal with the matter as you feel is best.  I solved that by making it my own.  I own its structure; the game rules do not. But then I had a head start with all of that...

Oh, certainly.  And when I finally get my gaming stuff out of storage, I'm starting over again on my world.  And there is nothing wrong with an iterative process, either; I know better what I want in a world now than I did when I was 16, and my tastes have changed.

[Admin Pete]

Jun 15, 2018 12:29:09 GMT -5 Hexenritter Verlag said:

Jun 15, 2018 10:30:09 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

I have done some re-writing of some of these elsewhere on the site. The biggest thing I did was with Paladins. Instead of starting at first level as a Paladin, at fourth level there was a choice/calling to Paladinhood. Fighting Men could become a Paladin of the Sword, Clerics could become Paladins of the Mace and Dwarves could become Paladins of the Axe. By doing so I also added Maces and Axes as very rare Intelligent weapons to the game, but only as something usable by the appropriate Paladin.

Oh, i like that kind of Template approach. Did they get Paladin abilities of some sort?

My latest write up is found here ruinsofmurkhill.proboards.com/thread/1533/pc-classes. Note that only the Paladin of the Mace get Clerical Spells having started as a Cleric. The Paladin of the Sword gets a Horse, the Paladin of the Mace gets a Mule and the Paladin of the Axe (Dwarf) gets a Vorax as a mount. (My version of an Aurumvorax or "golden gorger") 

[Admin Pete]

Starting with the post that contains the quoted text below, I split this thread so that the Classes discussion can continue here and the other discussion of world building can have its own thread here.

Jun 15, 2018 17:37:32 GMT -5 ripx187 said:

I read Admin Pete top down conditions and WOW! I have never thought in that big of a scale. It's actually intimidating, the amount of work that he put in before a game ever took place. That amount of forethought is beyond me.

I am assuming you were looking through the sub-forum Ruins of Murkhill Campaign and the threads there. I have posted very little and I can only assume it is the numbers for continents and islands you are referring to. That part is just running numbers. The tougher part is trying to rough out maps and unfortunately I can not draw a lick. I can picture it and I can use many words to describe it, but I can not draw it. But I thought I will jump over to a side thread to avoid any further derailment of this thread.

[Bartholmew Quarrels]

I think you work out what kind of campaign you want and then go about tailoring the classes to fit that specific campaign.

[Q Man]

Jun 14, 2018 20:28:19 GMT -5 dragondaddy said:

I really liked the thief class from Caltech's Warlock, with the additional special thieving abilities they gained at each level, so I added them for my regular D&D games.

For those of us that have not seen Warlock, can you tell us more about the thief class and how you use it dragondaddy ?