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

[santosud37]

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.

However, with the rules explsining the classes from the B/X is exactly why a lot of people got away from using the B/X box sets bc they were confusing people about what classes a chosen race could play as. This is is why AD&D 1e is much better at explaining and alleviating this confusion.
When I first started out in the early 80s I was confused as well by the B/X rules. I was like why would a race only be allowed to be this class? It limited what you could start out as and even had the XP tables for how to level up the Elves, Dwarves, etc differently than what 1e did. It is confusing, I know trust me. When I read the 1e PH it made a lot more sense to steer away from the D&D Box sets and just follow the more logical rules of levelling my now 20th level characters that are working on artifact quests and a major future war in the Known (Mystara) world and even FR or Greyhawk later on. Looking at Out and Inner planar travel for an MU that has Psionics for this as well.

 

[PHATsakk43]

However, with the rules explsining the classes from the B/X is exactly why a lot of people got away from using the B/X box sets bc they were confusing people about what classes a chosen race could play as. This is is why AD&D 1e is much better at explaining and alleviating this confusion.
When I first started out in the early 80s I was confused as well by the B/X rules. I was like why would a race only be allowed to be this class? It limited what you could start out as and even had the XP tables for how to level up the Elves, Dwarves, etc differently than what 1e did. It is confusing, I know trust me. When I read the 1e PH it made a lot more sense to steer away from the D&D Box sets and just follow the more logical rules of levelling my now 20th level characters that are working on artifact quests and a major future war in the Known (Mystara) world and even FR or Greyhawk later on. Looking at Out and Inner planar travel for an MU that has Psionics for this as well.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I've never heard anyone say that B/X was confusing or that 1E was better at alleviating confusion.

 

[santosud37]

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.

Yes, I agree with Phatsakk. A Dwarf being a Paladin would b difficult. I use the UA rules gor a Paladin build because it makes the most realistic sense. After my L18 Fighter reaches L20 I am going to switch him over to the Cavalier class and get him to L16 and then make him a Palladin. He is LG btw in Alignment. Another great thing about the 1e and later editions is the alignment fix.
PH1e had a Paladin off the Fighter class, which the UA book fixed to having come from the Cavalier class, which makes more sense bc they need mounts and the Cavaier class increases abilities needed for the Paladin pre-reqs. According to the 1e AD&D rules for a Paladin races r Human or Half-Elf. It would b very difficult to make any other class a Paladin in my opinion. But that doesn't mean it cannot be done. The alignment and ability pre-reqs is why.

 

[santosud37]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I've never heard anyone say that B/X was confusing or that 1E was better at alleviating confusion.

Yeah, I know it is shocking. I was just explaining how the Race of Elves can only be F/MUs in B/X for when first started out. It made no sense to me, even as a 12-yo boy starting out with these crazy rules. I was like why can't I be a Thief or a Ranger as an Elf. Lol A Dwarf can only be a Fighter? WHAT?
Then I read the PH1e and was like my eyes opened for the first time in shock. This is what I have been saying all along to my friends. Lol

 

[santosud37]

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 agree on the Morale checks being better. I actually forgot about that till u mentioned it.

 

[Voadam]

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 think you are thinking of Original D&D or possibly the pre-AD&D Holmes Basic set.

In Moldvay Basic (B/X Basic) and Mentzer Basic (BECMI Basic) and Rules Cyclopedia Basic Demihuman races were explicitly classes for PCs.

PC elves were not multiclass fighter magic users, they were a class that could use weapons and armor and cast spells as an equal level magic user but also had a d6 HD and level limits and infravision and such. They were similar to a multiclass elf in AD&D but even then the HD and xp advancement and level limits worked differently.

Here is the relevant pages from B/X Basic:

 

[santosud37]

I think you are thinking of Original D&D or possibly the pre-AD&D Holmes Basic set.

In Moldvay Basic (B/X Basic) and Mentzer Basic (BECMI Basic) and Rules Cyclopedia Basic Demihuman races were explicitly classes for PCs.

PC elves were not multiclass fighter magic users, they were a class that could use weapons and armor and cast spells as an equal level magic user but also had a d6 HD and level limits and infravision and such. They were similar to a multiclass elf in AD&D but even then the HD and xp advancement and level limits worked differently.

Here is the relevant pages from B/X Basic:

View attachment 404709
View attachment 404710

I know what u r talking about. I have that exact same booklet and both B/X box sets with thr Dragond on yhr covers of the red and light blue covers and the cream colored Rules Cyclopedia. I know exactly what u r saying about the classes having different XP tables. I made that transition from B/X to 1st ed like 35 years ago.
Let me try to explain it for the 3rd time so I sm clear. I am not arguing the Classes as being Fighter/MUs. If u read the book instead of blabbing about what the character classes are for an Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, or whatever, the book states that a Cleric (Class) is a Human (Race) that does so and so... An Elf is a demi-human (Race) that does fights with magical abilities, hence F/MU (Class), Dwarf is a demi-human (Race) that fights (Fighter, Class). Etc.
I hope this clears things up with what I am saying bc u guys are not reading the posts after the initial bad explanation apparently.

 

[Voadam]

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

Correct. Any class, any alignment. It has been that way for the last 17 years of D&D. 4e and 5e both.

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.

Mostly correct. D&D has done away with racial restrictions on classes and multiclassing for 25 years, since 3.0, 3.5, 4e, and 5e. 4e was a bit more restrictive on multiclassing with limited gaining of powers from secondary classes but no limits on races or stats. 5e has some minimal stats to multiclass into specific classes but no limits on how many or which races can do so.

Multiclassing also works differently than in AD&D, closer to the switch class rules for humans. Each level in 3e and 5e you pick one class to advance one level. So you could be a seventh level character with two levels of wizard (second level caster spells only) and five levels of fighter.

4e went a little different, you don't fully multiclass like in AD&D or 3e or 5e, you either take feats (similar to nonweapon proficiencies) to give you a class power and count as that class for power purposes and to take further class specific feats, or you build a hybrid class with some of the features of the two classes.

 

[santosud37]

Correct. Any class, any alignment. It has been that way for the last 17 years of D&D. 4e and 5e both.

Mostly correct. D&D has done away with racial restrictions on classes and multiclassing for 25 years, since 3.0, 3.5, 4e, and 5e. 4e was a bit more restrictive on multiclassing with limited gaining of powers from secondary classes but no limits on races or stats. 5e has some minimal stats to multiclass into specific classes but no limits on how many or which races can do so.

Multiclassing also works differently than in AD&D, closer to the switch class rules for humans. Each level in 3e and 5e you pick one class to advance one level. So you could be a seventh level character with two levels of wizard (second level caster spells only) and five levels of fighter.

4e went a little different, you don't fully multiclass like in AD&D or 3e or 5e, you either take feats (similar to nonweapon proficiencies) to give you a class power and count as that class for power purposes and to take further class specific feats, or you build a hybrid class with some of the features of the two classes.

TY for the explanation! I apologize for my typos as I am typing fast using my phone's keyboard and it fat-fingers a lot.
Taking yhe alignment restrictions is just as bad as the removing the level limits on demi-humans and the class restrictions removal, in my opinion. In the B/X and 1st ed there were reasons for both being restricted and it was explained clearly. This is the reason why I think it is nuts to remove that. For instance in any game I have ever played one won't just remove the foundational fundamentals of the game. For instance, you will never see a chaotic evil Paladin. There has to be some kind of restriction yo prevent an inbalance in thr game.

 

[Voadam]

TY for the explanation! I apologize for my typos as I am typing fast using my phone's keyboard and it fat-fingers a lot.
Taking yhe alignment restrictions is just as bad as the removing the level limits on demi-humans and the class restrictions removal, in my opinion.

Sure. In my opinion having played since 81 it was a great development.

In the B/X and 1st ed there were reasons for both being restricted and it was explained clearly. This is the reason why I think it is nuts to remove that. For instance in any game I have ever played one won't just remove the foundational fundamentals of the game. For instance, you will never see a chaotic evil Paladin. There has to be some kind of restriction yo prevent an inbalance in thr game.

The first official TSR published CE paladin that I am aware of was from Dragon 39, July 1980.

I had one in my AD&D anything TSR published I will allow 1e campaign in the 80s where the group tended evil (two assassins in the party too). The anti-paladin did not live long though.

Dragon 106 from February 1986 and still 1e era had an article titled A Plethora of Paladins which had variant paladins for the seven remaining alignments.

2e turned assassins from a class with an alignment requirement to a purely narrative description for anyone who kills for money (and then later I believe there were specific optional kits and such).

I much prefer 3e and on design where the design is to make the different classes balanced against each other mechanically for combat at each level as best they can over older editions with balancing factors of low level power versus high level power, powerful race abilities with level limits, powerful classes with slower advancement, powerful classes balanced by requiring powerful useful stats or restrictive roleplay/alignment requirements, and balancing out of combat stuff with combat stuff.