|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Sept 25, 2021 21:08:55 GMT -5
If you get into AD&D - especially into 2nd Ed AD&D you get into the whole swamp of "options" that really, truthfully turn out to be restrictions. 2E has a ton of kits and unfortunately they are not really written to be used by the PCs, they are all way more suitable for NPCs and are good guidance for that purpose.
So here is my proposal, create kits for OD&D with the following caveats. Just three classes, fighting-man, magic-user and cleric. The "kits" are guidance for adding flavor to each class, but are only guidance not hard and fast rules. And for example rangers and paladins are now "kits" not a subclass.
I have some thoughts about this, but I would like to hear from each of you about what you think and what you would do.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Sept 26, 2021 20:15:58 GMT -5
If you get into AD&D - especially into 2nd Ed AD&D you get into the whole swamp of "options" that really, truthfully turn out to be restrictions. 2E has a ton of kits and unfortunately they are not really written to be used by the PCs, they are all way more suitable for NPCs and are good guidance for that purpose. So here is my proposal, create kits for OD&D with the following caveats. Just three classes, fighting-man, magic-user and cleric. The "kits" are guidance for adding flavor to each class, but are only guidance not hard and fast rules. And for example rangers and paladins are now "kits" not a subclass. I have some thoughts about this, but I would like to hear from each of you about what you think and what you would do. I dig this idea and I've actually thought about doing something similar to kits/prestige classes for B/X several years ago. These should definitely be more of a "flavor variation" than a long list of rules and nonsense like that. Just using the fighting-man as an example, a paladin would be a warrior that rose up through the ranks and became dedicated to a lawful religion so much that he championed their values on his quests, donates money to their cause, rights wrongs, etc. Those few things could be written down on the character sheet and the DM could use them in situations to reward or impose ramifications on breaking the tenets. I'm going to brainstorm some more ideas but I *think* I explained my initial thoughts to get the idea across. I'll see if I can come up with a more concrete example. |
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Sept 26, 2021 21:37:59 GMT -5
Not at all my strong suit, but I can say anyway that I like this idea. For me, at least. A kit is a set of notions to be hung on a character, a kind of suggestion set. If a kit has no mechanics to it and no "system" to it, I am for it as a bit of inspiration for the player and the DM.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Oct 2, 2021 9:30:48 GMT -5
The Perilous Dreamer I'm still running ideas for these old style kits through my head. I wish I had some really good examples at this point but I do not. One thing I have thought up is that I would go with narrow and specific titles that are tied to the campaign instead of generic labels. For example, a fighting man would have kits for paladin, ranger, knight, etc. but I would try to use titles similar to what we have seen in books and movies. Something like Rangers of the North, Rohirrim, Knights of the Round Table, etc. I think you get the point. Does that make sense to anyone? You could even do some very minor mechanical adjustments. Maybe a paladin could get a bonus in combat against demons while their normal combat would be 1 level behind? Just a random thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Oct 2, 2021 13:58:14 GMT -5
The Perilous Dreamer I'm still running ideas for these old style kits through my head. I wish I had some really good examples at this point but I do not. One thing I have thought up is that I would go with narrow and specific titles that are tied to the campaign instead of generic labels. For example, a fighting man would have kits for paladin, ranger, knight, etc. but I would try to use titles similar to what we have seen in books and movies. Something like Rangers of the North, Rohirrim, Knights of the Round Table, etc. I think you get the point. Does that make sense to anyone? You could even do some very minor mechanical adjustments. Maybe a paladin could get a bonus in combat against demons while their normal combat would be 1 level behind? Just a random thought. Given the restrictions placed on Paladins, my take has always been that the Paladin is the best fighter in the game. But then I love the idea of Paladins. |
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Oct 2, 2021 14:35:37 GMT -5
The Perilous Dreamer I'm still running ideas for these old style kits through my head. I wish I had some really good examples at this point but I do not. One thing I have thought up is that I would go with narrow and specific titles that are tied to the campaign instead of generic labels. For example, a fighting man would have kits for paladin, ranger, knight, etc. but I would try to use titles similar to what we have seen in books and movies. Something like Rangers of the North, Rohirrim, Knights of the Round Table, etc. I think you get the point. Does that make sense to anyone? You could even do some very minor mechanical adjustments. Maybe a paladin could get a bonus in combat against demons while their normal combat would be 1 level behind? Just a random thought. Given the restrictions placed on Paladins, my take has always been that the Paladin is the best fighter in the game. But then I love the idea of Paladins. I'm with you on Paladins. I was using that ONLY as an example of the minimal mechanical info for these kits. Basically, a little positive and a little bit of a hindrance or "negatives" associated with each. |
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Oct 12, 2021 15:52:39 GMT -5
I'm still brainstorming on this. I'm picturing the kits as forks on level progression. A fighter could be a barbarian, knight, ranger, paladin. Obviously, some would be level 1 options like barbarian while others would be later options. Putting my thinking cap back on...
|
|
|
|
Post by arjen on Oct 18, 2021 9:51:02 GMT -5
I like the way the White-Hack does this. This game has very general classes: a "Strong" class, a "Wise" and a "Deft" (equivalent to FM, Wizard/Cleric/spellcaster and Thief/Skilled). Occopations (Fighter, Ranger, Wizard, Burglar,Alchemist etc. it's an open list) are noted on the sheet under an Attribute. For skills and situations a player can use the class/occupation as justification for the character being able to do something (tracking orcs through a dense forest because the PC is a ranger etc.). If the DM is using Attribute checks the player can get a bonus if the attribute check is the chosen attribute for the occupation/kit and the check falls within the idea of the kit.
A FM with Ranger written next to Constitution might be less tired after a cross country trip, less change of falling asleep during standing watch in the wilderness, maybe a bonus on Poison saving throws from "natural creatures" like snakes and such, all along with "general" ranger stuff like stalking, tracking, foraging and moving silently in the wilderness. A ranger that chose Intelligence might have some druidic knowledge and maybe able to use a magic spell from a scroll at later level.
You could allow characters a new occupation/kit each 4/5 levels or so (or allow them to choose 2 Attributes for a previous chosen kit)
|
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Oct 18, 2021 10:36:35 GMT -5
I like the way the White-Hack does this. This game has very general classes: a "Strong" class, a "Wise" and a "Deft" (equivalent to FM, Wizard/Cleric/spellcaster and Thief/Skilled). Occopations (Fighter, Ranger, Wizard, Burglar,Alchemist etc. it's an open list) are noted on the sheet under an Attribute. For skills and situations a player can use the class/occupation as justification for the character being able to do something (tracking orcs through a dense forest because the PC is a ranger etc.). If the DM is using Attribute checks the player can get a bonus if the attribute check is the chosen attribute for the occupation/kit and the check falls within the idea of the kit. A FM with Ranger written next to Constitution might be less tired after a cross country trip, less change of falling asleep during standing watch in the wilderness, maybe a bonus on Poison saving throws from "natural creatures" like snakes and such, all along with "general" ranger stuff like stalking, tracking, foraging and moving silently in the wilderness. A ranger that chose Intelligence might have some druidic knowledge and maybe able to use a magic spell from a scroll at later level. You could allow characters a new occupation/kit each 4/5 levels or so (or allow them to choose 2 Attributes for a previous chosen kit) This has some definite merit. |
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Oct 18, 2021 16:37:22 GMT -5
I like the way the White-Hack does this. This game has very general classes: a "Strong" class, a "Wise" and a "Deft" (equivalent to FM, Wizard/Cleric/spellcaster and Thief/Skilled). Occopations (Fighter, Ranger, Wizard, Burglar,Alchemist etc. it's an open list) are noted on the sheet under an Attribute. For skills and situations a player can use the class/occupation as justification for the character being able to do something (tracking orcs through a dense forest because the PC is a ranger etc.). If the DM is using Attribute checks the player can get a bonus if the attribute check is the chosen attribute for the occupation/kit and the check falls within the idea of the kit. A FM with Ranger written next to Constitution might be less tired after a cross country trip, less change of falling asleep during standing watch in the wilderness, maybe a bonus on Poison saving throws from "natural creatures" like snakes and such, all along with "general" ranger stuff like stalking, tracking, foraging and moving silently in the wilderness. A ranger that chose Intelligence might have some druidic knowledge and maybe able to use a magic spell from a scroll at later level.You could allow characters a new occupation/kit each 4/5 levels or so (or allow them to choose 2 Attributes for a previous chosen kit) I dig this. Like where this thread is going. Thanks for sharing this. |
|
