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

[cbwjm]

Using the halfling as a ranger I think works as a quick way to get a ranger in the game, it has a lot of abilities that would suit a ranger for BX and you can always extend the levels out if desired instead of halting it at 8th level. I do kind of feel like I'd want to allow all weapons though, but probably wouldn't need to make any changes beyond that.

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).

2e turned a handful of 1e classes into kits, though not all of them were 100% like the 1e version. From memory they had the cavalier as a fighter kit (but no ability increases as they level), the assassin as a rogue kit, and the 1e ranger as a ranger kit (but the targets of the bonus damage were more limited, looking at the 1e version it kind of looked like it ended up being any humanoid monster was a giant and took bonus damage). Not sure if there were any others.

I liked that Plethora of Paladins article as well, not necessarily as player options but it sort of made sense that the other alignments would have their champions. Of course by the time I read it, 3e was out.

 

[santosud37]

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

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

View attachment 404716
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.

View attachment 404717

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.

Paladons in AD&D came from the PH1e in 1978

 

[Mannahnin]

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.

A "class" is an arbitrary category for a character type in a given game. In MOST versions of D&D they're separate from races, but in B/X and BECMI the PC races ARE classes.

Voadam and I both gave you literal images of the pages, saying "Each type of demi-human is a class in itself" and "Dwarves are very hardy creatures and have better saving throws than most other character classes." (emphasis mine)

 

[Mannahnin]

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.

I love, love, love the OSR. So much good stuff in it. 2E is the TSR version I played the most of back in the day, but it doesn't hold the same magic for me.

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.

I agree. I've talked about and seen other folks discuss the "secret Ranger" Halfling for years, but the B/X Dwarf is not as good a fit for the Paladin. That was part of the motivation for these minimalist classes. A thought exercise of "Since you can't really make a Paladin just by re-skinning, could I make both of these with REALLY brief tweaks to existing classes, potentially short enough that I could just memorize the 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.
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.

Well, you've never played them, so it's no surprise that you don't understand them. It does surprise me that you'd express such strong negative opinions about games you've never played, though. It seems that you're basing these opinions on secondhand misinformation.

1E AD&D is not broken or busted or "anything goes" just because it makes characters more powerful and durable than OD&D, and gives more character options than OD&D. Which it does.

2E AD&D (especially with the Players Option books) is not broken or busted or "anything goes" just because it gives more powerful character options than 1E AD&D. Which it does.

The 1991 D&D Rules Cyclopedia is not broken or busted just because it introduced the concept of a death save at 0HP.

3E is not is not broken or busted or "anything goes" just because it makes characters more powerful and durable than AD&D, and gives more character options than AD&D. Which it does.

There have been several broad ongoing trends through the various editions and versions of D&D. One is that healing gets faster and characters tend to be less easy to kill. Another is that additional races and classes and options are added, so players have more variety available to them. These have been ongoing trends literally since the beginning of the game.

Characters in AD&D are tougher than characters in OD&D, but the monsters and challenges are also tougher. So to some extent that power is illusory, and no matter how tough the PCs, the DM ALWAYS has tougher monsters available and can challenge and kill them easily enough. Same in 4E and 5E, just as in literally every other edition. If you have a competent DM, any edition is balanced and challenging. I have run them all, and killed PCs in them all. There are no all-powerful PCs.

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!

I didn't write anything about Halflings carrying giant weapons. I did not advocate for that.

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.

If you want to reference an interview, please quote it and cite it. Publication, date and page. Here's one, from D&D book I: Men & Magic, 1974, by Gary Gygax:

And here's an excerpt from a letter he wrote into fanzine Alarums & Excursions, in the summer of 1975:

There seems to be considerable confusion amongst your contributors -- particularly those who tend to be in a flap about incomplete or unpalatable solutions (to them) of DandD rules/questions/problems. The game is complex and complicated. When it was released, it was by no means in a final (or even polished) form, but were we to sit on it for another few years in order to get it that way? Can a broad fantasy game ever be finished? Of course we could not hold off publication, for it was too much fun to keep from others.

Dave and I disagree on how to handle any number of things, and both of our campaigns differ from the "rules" found in DandD. If the time ever comes when all aspects of fantasy are covered and the vast majority of its players agree on how the game should be played, DandD will have become staid and boring indeed. Sorry, but I don't believe that there is anything desirable in having various campaigns playing similarly to one another. DandD is supposed to offer a challenge to the imagination and to do so in many ways. Perhaps the most important is in regard to what the probabilities of a given situation are. If players know what all of the monster parameters are, what can be expected in a given situation, exactly what will happen to them if they perform thus and so, most of the charm of the game is gone. Frankly, the reason I enjoy playing in Dave Arneson's campaign is that I do not know his treatments of monsters and suchlike, so I must keep thinking and reasoning in order to "survive". Now, for example, if I made a proclamation from on high which suited Mr. Johnstone, it would certainly be quite unacceptable to hundreds or even thousands of other players. My answer is, and has always been, if you don't like the way I do it, change the bloody rules to suit yourself and your players. DandD enthusiasts are far too individualistic and imaginative a bunch to be in agreement, and I certainly refuse to play god for them -- except as a referee in my own campaign where they jolly well better toe the mark. Let us consider the magic-user question.

Gary LATER decided he wasn't in love with "anything goes". He wrote some pretty pessimistic things about monster PCs in the 1979 DMG for example. But the game was ORIGINALLY loose and open to all kinds of crazy character types. And many players played that way in the 1970s, before Gary decided he wanted to limit the craziness and creativity. The game became a success in the anything goes days of the 70s.

So you're simply mistaken, again.