OSR Minimalist Paladin and Ranger rules for B/X aka Old School Essentials

[Mannahnin]

In my opinion, the race for the class would not work as a Paladin. I think the 1st ed. UA has the class pretty well nailed down in it's accuracy. As for the Ranger class from the 1st ed PH and UA there is no way in becoming a Ranger class for a Halfling. However, that doesn't mean you cannot make rules for one. I see in the Known World, or Mystara, where they do have adventurer's becoming classes outside of the norm for Halflings in the 5 Shires, because in the 0D&D B/X Box sets there was no class distinctions made really.

"Re-skinning" is a colloquialism for changing the appearance of an element in a game, like a monster or character class, without changing the underlying mechanics. It's often used as a simple technique for adding mystery and variety to monsters without having to actually design new stats for them, as an example. It alters the flavor/in-game fiction of the thing you're giving a new appearance to, while retaining the same rules.

So what I'm talking about with the Halfling being the "secret Ranger" class in B/X is my opinion that the MECHANICAL STATISTICS and abilities of the Halfling class in this game are actually a good fit for a class one could alternately DESCRIBE as being a Ranger instead of a Halfling.

Does that make sense? The Halfling class has a bonus to missile attacks, a restriction to use light weapons (which could be understood as a Ranger needing to travel light, as opposed to a Halfling being physically small), stealth ability in woodlands, a combat bonus against large monsters (AC bonus instead of the damage bonus vs. "Giant class" creatures the AD&D Ranger gets), etc. It's certainly not identical to the AD&D Ranger, but the mechanics also fit the archetype. So without creating any new rules, a DM could allow a character in B/X to be a Ranger while just using the rules for the Halfling.

And the point of this post is to take that a step further, based on that premise, to add a TINY amount of mechanics to add very simple versions of the Ranger and Paladin classes to B/X without having to write full detailed new class descriptions.

 

[santosud37]

"Re-skinning" is a colloquialism for changing the appearance of an element in a game, like a monster or character class, without changing the underlying mechanics. It's often used as a simple technique for adding mystery and variety to monsters without having to actually design new stats for them, as an example. It alters the flavor/in-game fiction of the thing you're giving a new appearance to, while retaining the same rules.

So what I'm talking about with the Halfling being the "secret Ranger" class in B/X is my opinion that the MECHANICAL STATISTICS and abilities of the Halfling class in this game are actually a good fit for a class one could alternately DESCRIBE as being a Ranger instead of a Halfling.

Does that make sense? The Halfling class has a bonus to missile attacks, a restriction to use light weapons (which could be understood as a Ranger needing to travel light, as opposed to a Halfling being physically small), stealth ability in woodlands, a combat bonus against large monsters (AC bonus instead of the damage bonus vs. "Giant class" creatures the AD&D Ranger gets), etc. It's certainly not identical to the AD&D Ranger, but the mechanics also fit the archetype. So without creating any new rules, a DM could allow a character in B/X to be a Ranger while just using the rules for the Halfling.

And the point of this post is to take that a step further, based on that premise, to add a TINY amount of mechanics to add very simple versions of the Ranger and Paladin classes to B/X without having to write full detailed new class descriptions.

 

[santosud37]

"Re-skinning" is a colloquialism for changing the appearance of an element in a game, like a monster or character class, without changing the underlying mechanics. It's often used as a simple technique for adding mystery and variety to monsters without having to actually design new stats for them, as an example. It alters the flavor/in-game fiction of the thing you're giving a new appearance to, while retaining the same rules.

So what I'm talking about with the Halfling being the "secret Ranger" class in B/X is my opinion that the MECHANICAL STATISTICS and abilities of the Halfling class in this game are actually a good fit for a class one could alternately DESCRIBE as being a Ranger instead of a Halfling.

Does that make sense? The Halfling class has a bonus to missile attacks, a restriction to use light weapons (which could be understood as a Ranger needing to travel light, as opposed to a Halfling being physically small), stealth ability in woodlands, a combat bonus against large monsters (AC bonus instead of the damage bonus vs. "Giant class" creatures the AD&D Ranger gets), etc. It's certainly not identical to the AD&D Ranger, but the mechanics also fit the archetype. So without creating any new rules, a DM could allow a character in B/X to be a Ranger while just using the rules for the Halfling.

And the point of this post is to take that a step further, based on that premise, to add a TINY amount of mechanics to add very simple versions of the Ranger and Paladin classes to B/X without having to write full detailed new class descriptions.

Maybe I am confused by what you are saying about being a Ranger instead of a Halfling. One cannot mix races with classes, just like in a real life. For example, you cannot be Asian in its of being being a Magic User or any class for that matter. Even the B/X/M rules did not do that. Instead what they did at the early stages of the game in the 70s and 80swas make it so demi-hmams could only be certain classes, as for instance, Elves were only F/MUs, Dwarves as Fighters, etc. Even in the early 80s when I started playing the game did not understand why they went that route, but I think Gary Gygax were still trying to figure out what direction to go at the early development with character classes. And they were pushing releases based off of deadlines to meet to get the game going. This is why i lke the rules given in he PH1 and UA much more than the B/X. For the most part I do not like 2e with their nonsenensical details. 3e and 3.5 is something I need to take a look at. 4r and 5e, in my opinion, is ridiculous with there unrealistic anything goes mentality.

 

[Mannahnin]

Maybe I am confused by what you are saying about being a Ranger instead of a Halfling.

Yes, you're confused.

Rules and fiction are different things. Most of the time rules are written to represent a given fiction, such as the B/X Halfling class being unable to use large weapons because they are physically small. But it is a longstanding practice for players and especially DMs to CHANGE the fiction in their game while keeping the existing rules which everyone has already agreed on. Whether that's playing the Halfling class AS a Ranger, or the OSR concept of introducing a new monster with a new description and fiction but just using the stats for a bear.

Even the B/X/M rules did not do that. Instead what they did at the early stages of the game in the 70s and 80swas make it so demi-hmams could only be certain classes, as for instance, Elves were only F/MUs, Dwarves as Fighters, etc.

Incorrect. In the 1974-1977 Original D&D rules (usually referred to as 0E or OD&D), like in AD&D, race and class were separate, but demihumans were limited in class selection. In the 1974 original boxed set Dwarves and Halflings could only be Fighters, and Elves were all Fighter/Magic-User multiclass, though they operated as only ONE of those during any given adventure, so they might wind up in practice only playing as one or the other if the player so chose. Once the Greyhawk supplement was released in 1975 the Thief class was introduced as an option, as was the Half-Elf race, and demi-humans got more options. Dwarves and Halflings, for example, could now be Fighters, Thieves, or Fighter/Thief multiclass. And now multiclassing worked the same way it does in AD&D- you got to use the abilities together, and all your XP was split evenly between them for your whole adventuring careers.

AD&D (PH 1978, DMG 1979) also has the same split between race and class.

The concept of making races INTO classes didn't come around until B/X in 1981, as a simplification for new and young players, and as another way to make D&D different from AD&D when TSR was fighting Dave Arneson in court over royalties and arguing that he wasn't entitled to them on AD&D because it was a different game.

For the most part I do not like 2e with their nonsenensical details. 3e and 3.5 is something I need to take a look at. 4r and 5e, in my opinion, is ridiculous with there unrealistic anything goes mentality.

I'm not sure how you could object to "nonsensical details" in 2E if you like 1E. I don't think much of anything makes LESS sense in 2E than in 1E. They're very compatible games, but the rules for 2E are generally clearer in lots of places.

4r and 5e, in my opinion, is ridiculous with there unrealistic anything goes mentality.

I think that opinion indicates that you don't know anything about how 70s D&D was very much "anything goes", including Gary in the original 1974 rules saying there was no problem with players playing as dragons as long as the DM made up an advancement chart and made them start off weak like everyone else. Or the famous Arduin grimoire, which was at least as weird as anything in 4E or 5E.

 

[Jack Daniel]

▯

 

[Mannahnin]

IIRC, hobbits cannot be fighter/thieves in the '75 rules.

Dwarves can be fighters, thieves, or fighter/thieves. Hobbits can be fighters or thieves. Elves can be fighter/magic-users, fighter/magic-user/thieves, or just thieves (with NPC elves possibly being fighter/magic-user/clerics). And half-elves have all the same options as elves, except that PC half-elves can have the F/MU/C triple-class if they have Wis 13+. If elves and half-elves can be single-classed fighters or magic-users, it's never explicitly spelled out (though it's reasonable to assume so), but the language of the text pretty straightforwardly forbids them from being single-classed clerics.

You're correct. I misremembered re: Hobbit F/Ts. Thanks for double-checking! They didn't get the F/T option until the 1E PH.

 

[PHATsakk43]

Only thing I’d add is a new look at Charisma.

I know there is a nostalgia factor for 17 specifically but an uber high CHA in general for paladins in TSR era rules.

It is one place where I can somewhat relate with suggestions that until at least 3E, the class requirements (along with a lot of other things) were very much locked into the game’s wargame roots. Especially where morale was often a bigger factor for a unit losing than outright slaughter and the effect of a high CHA champion with a strong command radius and impact had as a multiplier on unit performance.

So, if it’s just a requirement to have to get the class as an option, and you really don’t care about it otherwise, then sure. If you want it to actually contribute, it’s questionable unless you’re going to have lots of henchmen, followers, or outright wargames be included.

 

[santosud37]

You're correct. I misremembered re: Hobbit F/Ts. Thanks for double-checking! They didn't get the F/T option until the 1E PH.

I read your posts to my opinions on 2e and 4e and 5e. Here is my response to all 4 of your points.
Point #1
Even Fiction in any game has rules and limitations. One cannot make a Bishop move like a Knight in Chess, 1 cannot choose to skip over going to Jail in Monopoly, 1 cannot put a square piece in a circular hole. There comes a point when one gets to change the rules so much that the game becomes unwinnable or unfailing, which is why they balance games with rules to begin with. Having never played 4e and 5e, and thank God for that non-waste of time, from what I am hearing is that anything goes with character builds. Well, hell why don't you just allow every character to just get 25s in all abilities and become gods and end the game before u even start.

Additionwl Point #1
I would have to disagree with u on the Halfling concept of carrying a Double Bladed Battle Axe or a 2-Handed Sword which weighs more then the Halfling 3-fold. U must b 1 helluva bodybuilding Halfling to carry that around and don't forget the axe and sword are also double the size of the Halfling. Additionally, I hope that same Halfling does not have any Armor or gear to carry around with them. No rules, OK lets make it so the Halfling becomes a Titan at will that can cast instant Death Spells on all creatures and characters in the Universe at will anytime it wants as a L0 Halfling. Good job at destroying a once Rule-based game for creative minds!

Point #2
You just said exactly what I said on this point so no discussion here U just added some more detail into what I said. Great job on that point. Always love to learn.

Pount #3
I will grant u this. There r some rules in 2e that make sense, but in most cases, the 2e rules r ridiculous and I will explain with examples of what I mean by nonsensical ideas and why that came about. As I grew up with this game and online RPG video gaming in the 70s and 80s.
First the Pros of 2e:
Some ideas, granted, are good. For instance, the Advancement of THAC0, pg 91 PH2e and the changes with THAC0 for all character classes.
The optional leveling for demi-humans for mins and maxes of levels + the additional levels based on ability scores. Additionally clearing up the errors found in the PH1e and UA for having an Elven Thief be Unlimited in the Elven Race. Because I have Elven Thieves started back in the early 80s that are now above there level limits.
Showing the ability scores the same as the Legends and Lore and Deities and Demi-gods books going to 25 for all. However, they failed to explain 1 important thing here. The most important thing in fact, which is clearly explained by Gary Gygax from the L&L1e book.
I am sure I could find more, but I think this will suffice for now.

Cons of 2e
The big one for me that tells me to stay away from 2e is this in 2 parts: First, the combining of all classes into 4 classes: Wizards: Magic Users, Illusionists and any other Magic bearing class, other than Chronomancers and Psionisists (which even Gary G hated the idea of), Rogues: Bards, Assassins, and Thieves Priests: Clerics and Druids,and Warriors: Fighters, Barbarians, Cavaliers, Paladins, Monks, and Rangers.
WHAT?
U know the wisdom behind: What isn't broke don't try to fix.
Well this is one of those times.
The separation of classes for each of these is problably, not only the most logical, but also the best concept in the D&D and AD&D game and 1 edition destroys it without any clue as to what they have just done by releasing this nonsense.
Secondly, PH2e P 31 Table 22 if you do not think that is not non-sensical then I can say it in another way. Half that table, the first half makes sense, the second half I would have told the person to get rid of it and throw into the fireplace and never come up with such nonsense again or you will be fired.
Race and Minimum ability scores for a Magic-User or Wizard other than Intelligence or even Dexterity for an Illusionist? Why would a MU or an Illusionist need Charisma, Constitution, or Wisdom to cast a spell? Do Clerics and Druids now need Intelligence, and the other ability scores to cast their spells. Because maybe they don't understand what their gods are telling them. Non-sensical is an appropriate lightly-phrased word tor this, in my opinion.

More Cons,
PH2e pg 24
The age table. How does 1 book and LoTR have it right, go from Elves being hundreds of years old max from DMG1e going to several thousand years old. And by the way, the rest of the demi-humans are off by decades and even centuries as well.

The fact that they missed explaining no mortal being gets the immunities from having a 19+ ability score or tsome of he additional benefits from having such scores, which are reserved for the Powers; gods, high level devils/demons, mortals who have ascended into the Outer planes and became demi-gods, etc.
For instance a L0 Cleric obtains a 19 Wisdom by adjusting his abilities for that class to play. This 19 Wisdom does not grant the spell immunities that come with that 19 Wisdom. The same goes for having a 19+ Constitution. One does not Regenerate HPs because they have a high Constitution as a mortal. And Intelligence u do NOT become immune to Illusion spells bc u have a 19+ Int. This is NOT explained in the PH2e and is well explained in the L&L1e. The same is true for the other ability scores. No mortal automatically gets spell immunities. That is earned by ascending to a Power.

Schools of magic: how do healing spells that could also be reversed to cause damage fall under Necromancy? Why isn't there a Restoration Magic School for this?

I am sure I could find more Pros and Cons for the 2e. I am using some ideas and corrections given in the 2ed, but for the most part, I do not like it.

I am going to have to look into 3ed and 3.5 ed as I am told they would b more to my liking. 4ed and 5ed I won't even waste my time with.

Point #4
The example you provided is correct. A dragon class can be made and was even accomplished in Everquest, the online game that had separated classes, Magic User, Wizard, Enchanter, Necromancer, Druid, Cleric, Fighter, Rogues, Drakkin (Later on), Bards, and Rangers.
Same with WoW and many other RPGs online, i.e. Might and Magic, Ultima games,
Elder Scrolls, Oblivion, etc.
Oh I guess u missed that interview, Gary G says no to "anything goes" because he made rules to say otherwise by writing the rulebooks for the game along with several other authors. If anything goes was the start in the D&D or AD&D game in the 70's, the game would have never become the success to begin with. Included in this would be every other game and sport in the world. If everyone was guaranteed to fail or win in the end then u wouldn't have any competition.This is not a Political BS game.

 

[Voadam]

Having never played 4e and 5e, and thank God for that non-waste of time, from what I am hearing is that anything goes with character builds. Well, hell why don't you just allow every character to just get 25s in all abilities and become gods and end the game before u even start.

I am not sure what you are talking about here.

The post AD&D 3e, 4e, and 5e allowing any race and class combo? No ability score requirements for classes?

3e and 5e multiclassing where you can take a level of a different class whenever you level up?

The removal of alignment restrictions on classes in 4e and 5e?

Something else you heard about second hand?

 

[santosud37]

"Re-skinning" is a colloquialism for changing the appearance of an element in a game, like a monster or character class, without changing the underlying mechanics. It's often used as a simple technique for adding mystery and variety to monsters without having to actually design new stats for them, as an example. It alters the flavor/in-game fiction of the thing you're giving a new appearance to, while retaining the same rules.

So what I'm talking about with the Halfling being the "secret Ranger" class in B/X is my opinion that the MECHANICAL STATISTICS and abilities of the Halfling class in this game are actually a good fit for a class one could alternately DESCRIBE as being a Ranger instead of a Halfling.

Does that make sense? The Halfling class has a bonus to missile attacks, a restriction to use light weapons (which could be understood as a Ranger needing to travel light, as opposed to a Halfling being physically small), stealth ability in woodlands, a combat bonus against large monsters (AC bonus instead of the damage bonus vs. "Giant class" creatures the AD&D Ranger gets), etc. It's certainly not identical to the AD&D Ranger, but the mechanics also fit the archetype. So without creating any new rules, a DM could allow a character in B/X to be a Ranger while just using the rules for the Halfling.

And the point of this post is to take that a step further, based on that premise, to add a TINY amount of mechanics to add very simple versions of the Ranger and Paladin classes to B/X without having to write full detailed new class descriptions.

Ranger is a Class and not Race. So no it does not make sense.
I understand the modifications to the Class u r describing, but for what Race?