A lost version of the AD&D classes and races?

[GuyBoy]

That first version of the witch was meant to be overpowered. If you read the article, the author meant for it to be used as an NPC only, and meant for them to be able to single-handedly take on entire parties. Which, keep in mind, this was the edition where the party might include 8 PCs and 14 hirelings...

“Single-handedly take out a party”; there were three of them!
No wonder they smashed us. Poor Calanthia.

 

[RealAlHazred]

“Single-handedly take out a party”; there were three of them!

Well, then you were three times as screwed! The first Dragon magazine witch class was submitted, and the submission paperwork lost. I don't know that it was ever determined who wrote it. I go into a bit of detail about it in my blog post(s) on the witch class in D&D.

EDIT: Please be aware, I use affiliate links in my blog.

 

[GuyBoy]

Well, then you were three times as screwed! The first Dragon magazine witch class was submitted, and the submission paperwork lost. I don't know that it was ever determined who wrote it. I go into a bit of detail about it in my blog post(s) on the witch class in D&D.

EDIT: Please be aware, I use affiliate links in my blog.

Just read your blog. Awesome stuff. I learnt a lot.

 

[Greg K]

Wasn't there an issue of Dragon in which Holmes described what his version of a witch class would be like? No actual class write-up, but what his general take of such a class would involve.

 

[Davies]

Wasn't there an issue of Dragon in which Holmes described what his version of a witch class would be like? No actual class write-up, but what his general take of such a class would involve.

Dr. Holmes published three articles in Dragon, but the only one that might be what you're describing -- the "author's notes" on his edition of BD&D, in #52 -- doesn't have anything like that. I think you might be thinking of Tom Moldvay's witch class in #43, maybe.

 

[Greg K]

Dr. Holmes published three articles in Dragon, but the only one that might be what you're describing -- the "author's notes" on his edition of BD&D, in #52 -- doesn't have anything like that. I think you might be thinking of Tom Moldvay's witch class in #43, maybe.

Thanks. I probably was.

 

[RealAlHazred]

Just read your blog. Awesome stuff. I learnt a lot.

Then it was time well spent! I learned a lot researching it! I need to pick up the posting again, though -- I've let it slide.

 

[RealAlHazred]

I think you might be thinking of Tom Moldvay's witch class in #43, maybe.

I think the witch class in #43 was by Bill Muhlhausen; Kim Mohan and Tom Moldvay provided "editing," which could potentially go up to rewriting an article.

 

[haakon1]

In 3/3.5e, I believe in DMG section on NPC classes like Warrior and Expert, it mentions you could create a Witch class and gives some ideas. I used a Witch NPC (enemy in a large group, including a wizard) from that concept once, and I don’t think the players noticed it wasn’t a sorcerer.

 

[GreyLord]

Been looking through the rules of older editions, for reasons, and stumbled across this interesting section in the 1977 Holmes Basic Set:


1) There was originally going to be a witch class in AD&D? Wonder what that would have been like, especially in 1978? I imagine rather different than the warlock we know today...
2) The monk was originally going to be a variant cleric. (IIRC they did try to revive the monk in 2E as a cleric subtype.)
3) Half-elves are mentioned, but not half-orcs or gnomes (gnomes are listed later on, but only as a monster).
4) The only AD&D class option mentioned for dwarves, elves, and halflings is thief. However, maybe they figured dwarves' access to the fighter ("fighting man") class, elves' access to fighter and magic-user, and halflings' access to fighter in AD&D was already implied by them sharing the progression of those classes?

Thought this was also interesting:

Now, they don't tell you how to do this. But imagine if they had, and that sort of customization had been strongly supported from the game's early days?

Witch was another term for Wizard in that clause.

I have an older set than many, and in the Holmes Set I had, the elf was to choose each time whether to adventure as a Fighter OR a Magic-User. This was apparantly changed on release or something to that matter.

The clause that one could be whatever they wanted, but had to start inexperienced and then advance was in the game since the original LBB were released. I'd have to go back and check, but that paragraph sounds almost exactly what the LBBs also state.

There was no defined way to do this, because it was expected that once a DM was experienced enough, they could do it themselves. You could literally play anything you wanted originally, if your DM was willing to work it out with you.