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

[santosud37]

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?

The rekoval of alignment restrictions on classes. WHAT?
Is this for every class? Because that sounds nuts too.

It is my understanding, that anything goes as to what class u can build with any number of ability scores u can muster. It is also my understanding, from someone I know who only plays 5e, that u can build any multi-class character from any race. Now, unless I sm crazy, that sounds totally against AD&D rules.

 

[Mannahnin]

I read your posts to my opinions on 2e and 4e and 5e. Here is my response to all 4 of your points.
...

I don't have time to respond to this long post of yours right now but would like to get to it later. Just noting that.

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?

In B/X (and its clone OSE) three races for adventurers ARE classes. So when I see a class which has a bunch of abilities which are a good match for the fictional concept of the Ranger, it doesn't matter what kind of class that is. I can "re-skin" it as being a Ranger without changing the mechanics at all and thereby enhance my game by enabling an additional character archetype without even needing to write new rules.

The rekoval of alignment restrictions on classes. WHAT?
Is this for every class? Because that sounds nuts too.

It is my understanding, that anything goes as to what class u can build with any number of ability scores u can muster. It is also my understanding, from someone I know who only plays 5e, that u can build any multi-class character from any race. Now, unless I sm crazy, that sounds totally against AD&D rules.

Yes, very much against some of AD&D's worst and most wrong-headed rules. Minimum ability score limitations in OD&D and AD&D were SORT OF fun in that they made for a kind of gambling sub-game in character creation, where you had to get lucky to roll well enough to play certain classes. That can be enjoyable, at least assuming you play enough D&D that you have lots of opportunities to roll up characters. But that is not an assumption which applies to most people, nowadays or even forty years ago.

The idea that it's more balanced is absurd. Silly. Deeply and profoundly incorrect. Gating the Paladin or Ranger classes (for example) behind high ability scores is the opposite of balanced. It is a "the rich get richer" mechanic, meaning characters who are ALREADY advantaged by having higher ability scores than most get EVEN MORE BENEFITS by qualifying for classes with more special abilities.

Removal of racial and alignment restrictions on character classes is a matter of taste. I enjoy both concepts of Paladins- the shining hero archetype AND the more flexible champions of various alignments. But the latter is not a new concept. WotC didn't introduce it even 25 years ago. Dragon Magazine introduced the Anti-Paladin class in issue 39, July 1980. And there was a very popular "A Plethora of Paladins" article in issue 106 which introduced rules for Paladins of the other 7 alignments. There were both in the 80s, for AD&D.

Racial or alignment restrictions on classes can suit particular campaigns. But removing them from the core rules 25 years ago was really just continuing a trend of enabling more player choice and flexibility with character concepts and classes which goes all the way back to the beginning. As we already discussed with how the Greyhawk supplement in 1975 added a whole new class and a bunch more options for demihumans. And the AD&D Players Handbook added even more in 1978. And Unearthed Arcana even more in 1985.

 

[Mannahnin]

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.

MOSTLY agreed, although Reaction Rolls certainly matter in B/X, and a high Charisma can certainly help with those even if you don't use retainers. I am used to running with small to medium-sized groups, though, so retainers definitely see play and increasing their Loyalty scores is really nice too.

The main reason I set it to 17 was purely for ease of memory, since any old AD&D player can easily remember that, and my line of thought with these designs was to make them so simple that I could memorize the rules. Otherwise, for balance and to be able to be played more, I'd set it lower.

 

[PHATsakk43]

MOSTLY agreed, although Reaction Rolls certainly matter in B/X, and a high Charisma can certainly help with those even if you don't use retainers. I am used to running with small to medium-sized groups, though, so retainers definitely see play and increasing their Loyalty scores is really nice too.

In my experience, reaction rolls were probably one of the least utilized game randomizers, even less used than morale checks.

 

[santosud37]

I don't have time to respond to this long post of yours right now but would like to get to it later. Just noting that.


In B/X (and its clone OSE) three races for adventurers ARE classes. So when I see a class which has a bunch of abilities which are a good match for the fictional concept of the Ranger, it doesn't matter what kind of class that is. I can "re-skin" it as being a Ranger without changing the mechanics at all and thereby enhance my game by enabling an additional character archetype without even needing to write new rules.


Yes, very much against some of AD&D's worst and most wrong-headed rules. Minimum ability score limitations in OD&D and AD&D were SORT OF fun in that they made for a kind of gambling sub-game in character creation, where you had to get lucky to roll well enough to play certain classes. That can be enjoyable, at least assuming you play enough D&D that you have lots of opportunities to roll up characters. But that is not an assumption which applies to most people, nowadays or even forty years ago.

The idea that it's more balanced is absurd. Silly. Deeply and profoundly incorrect. Gating the Paladin or Ranger classes (for example) behind high ability scores is the opposite of balanced. It is a "the rich get richer" mechanic, meaning characters who are ALREADY advantaged by having higher ability scores than most get EVEN MORE BENEFITS by qualifying for classes with more special abilities.

Removal of racial and alignment restrictions on character classes is a matter of taste. I enjoy both concepts of Paladins- the shining hero archetype AND the more flexible champions of various alignments. But the latter is not a new concept. WotC didn't introduce it even 25 years ago. Dragon Magazine introduced the Anti-Paladin class in issue 39, July 1980. And there was a very popular "A Plethora of Paladins" article in issue 106 which introduced rules for Paladins of the other 7 alignments. There were both in the 80s, for AD&D.

Racial or alignment restrictions on classes can suit particular campaigns. But removing them from the core rules 25 years ago was really just continuing a trend of enabling more player choice and flexibility with character concepts and classes which goes all the way back to the beginning. As we already discussed with how the Greyhawk supplement in 1975 added a whole new class and a bunch more options for demihumans. And the AD&D Players Handbook added even more in 1978. And Unearthed Arcana even more in 1985.

There is no race in D&D B/X that was a class. I have the B/X box sets and playefd by those rules when Infirst started out. I have already explained this.
Elves were F/MUs dual class, Dwarves were Fighters, and Halflings started out as Fighters.
The PH1e and UA added more classes for races and added dual- and multi-classes along with single classes for those races.
The race of Halflings had many different combos of classes to choose from with restrictions to other classes. You have to separate the two ideas.
Races and classes are 2 different things.
Think of Class as your occupation as a Mercenary going on Adventure.

 

[PHATsakk43]

There is no race in D&D B/X that was a class. I have the B/X box sets and playefd by those rules when Infirst started out. I have already explained this.
Elves were F/MUs dual class, Dwarves were Fighters, and Halflings started out as Fighters.
The PH1e and UA added more classes for races and added dual- and multi-classes along with single classes for those races.
The race of Halflings had many different combos of classes to choose from with restrictions to other classes. You have to separate the two ideas.
Races and classes are 2 different things.
Think of Class as your occupation as a Mercenary going on Adventure.

I'm not particularly interested in wading into whatever is going on here, but that take is explicitly not what is in the B/X rules nor is it really what the game is implying.

Page 30 in the Basic boxed set Player's Manual has the 7 "Character Classes" listed. They are, Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User, Thief, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling. There was no distinct concept of "race" and "class" in B/X or BECMI as was the case in previous versions of D&D or AD&D. Could you make the connection that a B/X "Elf" class was in fact a fighter/magic-user multiclass, sure, but that wasn't how it was written.

 

[Mannahnin]

There is no race in D&D B/X that was a class. I have the B/X box sets and playefd by those rules when Infirst started out. I have already explained this.
Elves were F/MUs dual class, Dwarves were Fighters, and Halflings started out as Fighters.

I've been actively running these rules recently. You are simply incorrect, and transposing concepts from other editions onto B/X.

What you describe in that latter sentence is how it worked in the 1974 original rules. Not the 1981 Basic and Expert rules.

 

[Mannahnin]

In my experience, reaction rolls were probably one of the least utilized game randomizers, even less used than morale checks.

Yes, I figured that was probably the perspective you were speaking from.

For my part, the simple Morale rules are one of the areas where B/X is superior to AD&D, and the MUCH simpler Reaction rules are as well, though some OSR folks have definitely done a better job writing clearer and more usable Reaction tables. Skerples' The Monster Overhaul includes some of the latter, in that wonderful treasure trove of a book.

 

[santosud37]

I've been actively running these rules recently. You are simply incorrect, and transposing concepts from other editions onto B/X.

What you describe in that latter sentence is how it worked in the 1974 original rules. Not the 1981 Basic and Expert rules.

View attachment 404699

Yes, but it does not say Class of Elves, Dwarves, or Hwlflings. It says Demi-humans as a race of Elves, Dwarves, Halflings,. Clerics there says Humans, but it doesn't say Clerics are a race. It is the class chosen by the Human. Just like Fighters is a class chosen by a Human or a Thief, etc. So, in your case of choosing a Ranger, that is still a class but then u would have to say for what Race. In your case u said a Halfling. OK so i r making an Halfling Ranger, not a Ranger Halfling if u were to put race first.
RAnger is still a class and the race would b a Halfling. Same goes for an Elf in the Basic rules. Elf is a demi-human race and F/MU is the classes for it.

 

[PHATsakk43]

Yes, I figured that was probably the perspective you were speaking from.

For my part, the simple Morale rules are one of the areas where B/X is superior to AD&D, and the MUCH simpler Reaction rules are as well, though some OSR folks have definitely done a better job writing clearer and more usable Reaction tables. Skerples' The Monster Overhaul includes some of the latter, in that wonderful treasure trove of a book.

I've not gotten into as much of the OSR stuff as I probably should considering how much I prefer the pre d20 game.

I've been dreaming of a proper re-org of the 2E game into a more fixed format, in other words, cut the options and define a specific set to keep it small enough to play well. FG&G didn't do for me what I would like to see done, and for the most part the OSR has otherwise ignored 2E. My guess is, if you want something out of a 2E game, you can probably already get it from a published source so there wasn't as much demand for retro-clones.

It also has been a long time since I read any basic D&D, so pulling out the Moldvay/Cook Basic box did have me think a bit about what you're proposing. The halfling is absolutely dead-on for a ranger reskin. I'm not as sure about the dwarf being a proto-paladin though.