AD&D 1E Revised and Rebalanced Cavalier for 1e AD&D

[Lanefan]

As Celebrim said. Plus in 1E if you have a 3/2 or 5/2 attack rate you get the extra attack in odd-numbered rounds, whereas in 2E they changed that to even-numbered rounds for some reason.

Even-numbered rounds makes in-fiction sense mostly because of how it works in the first two rounds of combat: as combat begins (round 1) you only get 1 attack, while by round 2 you've settled in to the fight and get two attacks.

 

[Celebrim]

As Celebrim said. Plus in 1E if you have a 3/2 or 5/2 attack rate you get the extra attack in odd-numbered rounds, whereas in 2E they changed that to even-numbered rounds for some reason.

I think, because most AD&D combats were over by round three (at the latest). So if you have a 3/2 attack rate in odd numbered rounds you are attacking 5/3 as opposed to the 4/3 of even numbered rounds. Odd numbered rounds is probably too good.

In fact, I think I'd always played with you get the extra attack at the end of the sequence - I don't remember that it worked the other way in 1e. Somewhere I remember a 5/4 attack pattern where you got an extra attack every fourth round only(?).

But I haven't played this regularly in over 30 years.

 

[Mannahnin]

Even-numbered rounds makes in-fiction sense mostly because of how it works in the first two rounds of combat: as combat begins (round 1) you only get 1 attack, while by round 2 you've settled in to the fight and get two attacks.

I disagree. I think having it work in the odd-numbered rounds makes more sense because it really makes those extra attacks valuable and apply even if it's a short fight. In 1E the 7th level (or specialized) Fighter automatically gets to win initiative over less-skilled foes, as well, per the rule re: initiative with multiple attack routines.

You can certainly rationalize it the way you've done there. And I'm sympathetic to Celebrim's argument that odd-numbered rounds might just be too powerful, though I think if so that's a knock-on effect of weapon specialization being a little too good.

 

[Lanefan]

Problems with the Write Up:

1) As @Lanefan has noticed, I haven't actually described how to continue as a fighter if you lose the subclass. I probably should as that will be generally useful for other class write ups. It happened in part because I suddenly realized that the rules were really vague about what happened in that case and writing it up exactly would be more convoluted than the original rules make it sound despite being a "normal" 1e AD&D mechanic.

The Cavalier already has basic martial training built in: a 5th-level Cavalier more or less fights like a 5th-level Fighter, other than the differences between weapon-of-choice and specialization. A Cavalier who goes (small-r!) rogue would still have that basic martial training to fall back on and would, one would think, be easily able to carry on as a non-specialized Fighter of the same level using the weapon proficiencies it already has.

What a typical Cavalier doesn't and wouldn't have, though, is a shred of Thief training. In the fiction, you're forcing them to start from scratch as a 0-level Thief, which makes very little in-fiction sense unless you're suggesting - and you aren't, I don't think - that they'd somehow forget all their militia training overnight.

Forcing fallen Rangers to become Thieves makes a bit more sense given that there's already some overlap in abilities (but I'd still make them become Fighters anyway).

3) As written up, Dauntless makes Wisdom a real dump stat for the Cavalier, which is funny but not really the intention. I have considered several alternatives such as capping the Dauntless benefit at +4 or halfing the benefit so that it's only 1/2 your Cavelier level. The important thing is that it isn't as front loaded as the original write up. But I'm not exactly sure where to go with it.

Maybe flip the stat requirements such that they need Wis-11 instead of Int-11 and let Int become their dump stat - they're too dumb to be afraid!

(a long-standing joke here, borne out once or twice in fact, is that on meeting a mounted Cavalier it's an open question which is smarter: the rider, or the mount)

4) The write up is vague on what happens to non-cavaliers below 0 hit points. This is somewhat intended as the rules vary, but how powerful "Hard to Kill" actually is will depend on the rules used at different tables.

Yeah, this is one that, regardless of the actual mechanics used, I'd prefer work the same for everyone in the setting, adventurer or not.

I'm still on the fence about their Martyr action. I'm not sure if it should be immediate death or just they immediately lapse unconscious. I'm equally unsure about what the best saving throw to stay conscious should be. I could see an argument for using a SSS check, a CON check, or a different saving throw.

For staying conscious, we use roll equal-or-under [Con modified by your current h.p.] thus if your Con is 15 and you're at -4 you need to roll 11 or lower to keep going.

5) I would expect some fan of the class to say, "Look what you've done to my boy!" I admit if anything the class is on the weak side now, though it is probably more powerful than most non-specialized fighters. I think I need to tone down the XP requirements after 8th level just a tad.

One thing to watch for, and this the main thing that's made Cavaliers very unpopular to play IME, is that they're far less useful when unmounted, and most dungeons and adventure sites aren't exactly mount-friendly.

 

[Lanefan]

I disagree. I think having it work in the odd-numbered rounds makes more sense because it really makes those extra attacks valuable and apply even if it's a short fight. In 1E the 7th level (or specialized) Fighter automatically gets to win initiative over less-skilled foes, as well, per the rule re: initiative with multiple attack routines.

The 1e initiative rules as written are, overall, an unholy mess best ignored if one wants to preserve one's sanity.

You can certainly rationalize it the way you've done there. And I'm sympathetic to Celebrim's argument that odd-numbered rounds might just be too powerful, though I think if so that's a knock-on effect of weapon specialization being a little too good.

Agree that weapon spec. as written is too good, particularly at low level.

It's a great idea and gives single-class Fighters a nice leg-up, but it needs to kick in more slowly as levels advance rather than all at 1st-level; also should stop at single spec. (+1/+2). Weapon of choice for Cav's gets this slowly-accruing benefits piece right.

 

[Lanefan]

I think, because most AD&D combats were over by round three (at the latest). So if you have a 3/2 attack rate in odd numbered rounds you are attacking 5/3 as opposed to the 4/3 of even numbered rounds. Odd numbered rounds is probably too good.

Agreed; and IME most melee fights of any significance go somewhat longer than just 3 rounds.

In fact, I think I'd always played with you get the extra attack at the end of the sequence - I don't remember that it worked the other way in 1e. Somewhere I remember a 5/4 attack pattern where you got an extra attack every fourth round only(?).

But I haven't played this regularly in over 30 years.

That 5/4 thing might have been Monks, they got all kinds of weird attack routines as they advanced in level.

 

[Celebrim]

The Cavalier already has basic martial training built in: a 5th-level Cavalier more or less fights like a 5th-level Fighter, other than the differences between weapon-of-choice and specialization. A Cavalier who goes (small-r!) rogue would still have that basic martial training to fall back on and would, one would think, be easily able to carry on as a non-specialized Fighter of the same level using the weapon proficiencies it already has.

So I think there is a lot of what I'm doing here you aren't picking up on. First, "just carrying on as a non-specialized fighter of the same" level is a possibility I'd like to provide for in some sense, but there class really isn't "fighter" we are just saying that it is. And class levels aren't interchangeable because they involve different amounts of XP. So we also have to do some sort of adjustment to XP. Just by RAW, let's say we have a 7th level Paladin who loses Paladin abilities and becomes, as the rules would suggest, a 7th level fighter. But if the Paladin had 170,000 XP, how much XP does he have now? It's not 170,00 XP, or else he's an 8th level fighter now.

What a typical Cavalier doesn't and wouldn't have, though, is a shred of Thief training.

I'm not suggesting that he does. I'm suggesting a moral and mental crisis has occurred.

In the fiction, you're forcing them to start from scratch as a 0-level Thief, which makes very little in-fiction sense unless you're suggesting - and you aren't, I don't think - that they'd somehow forget all their militia training overnight.

They can in fact keep fighting with all the skills of whatever level character they achieved. What they do not and cannot do under these rules is keeping going on through life as if nothing really happened. I'm doing something I feel is suitable Arthurian here. Fallen knights turning into rogues just feels right.

Forcing fallen Rangers to become Thieves makes a bit more sense given that there's already some overlap in abilities (but I'd still make them become Fighters anyway).

It's not about the real world. It's about fantasy.

Maybe flip the stat requirements such that they need Wis-11 instead of Int-11 and let Int become their dump stat - they're too dumb to be afraid!

Doesn't fit the write up. Dummies don't qualify for the class because the class is supposed to be elegant and refined. Being self-aware is not a requirement.

Yeah, this is one that, regardless of the actual mechanics used, I'd prefer work the same for everyone in the setting, adventurer or not.

The intended write up is to make the Cavalier better at staying conscious than other classes. For your homebrew this would probably translate into a bonus on saving throws and a lower floor on when you actually died. But it's hard to write a rule that covers everyone's homebrew.

One thing to watch for, and this the main thing that's made Cavaliers very unpopular to play IME, is that they're far less useful when unmounted, and most dungeons and adventure sites aren't exactly mount-friendly.

You get 3/2 attacks with a sword by 3rd level, so I think you'll be fine dismounted.

 

[Celebrim]

Agreed; and IME most melee fights of any significance go somewhat longer than just 3 rounds.

There are ways to stretch them out using large numbers of foes. Most AD&D creatures are glass cannons. However, we've discussed this before. Your monsters have been hit point buffed considerably from RAW IIRC to solve the glass cannon problem, thus leading to longer fights.

That 5/4 thing might have been Monks, they got all kinds of weird attack routines as they advanced in level.

That's it! Page 31 of the PH, the note on the Monk table indicates that extra attacks occur at the end of the count of rounds, and not the beginning. I had taken this for a general rule back in the day, and I'm surprised to discover that for fighters it didn't work that way.

 

[TwoSix]

I disagree. I think having it work in the odd-numbered rounds makes more sense because it really makes those extra attacks valuable and apply even if it's a short fight. In 1E the 7th level (or specialized) Fighter automatically gets to win initiative over less-skilled foes, as well, per the rule re: initiative with multiple attack routines.

You can certainly rationalize it the way you've done there. And I'm sympathetic to Celebrim's argument that odd-numbered rounds might just be too powerful, though I think if so that's a knock-on effect of weapon specialization being a little too good.

I'm used to even-numbered rounds as a 2e kid.

Putting on my tinkering hat, I can see arguments for letting the player choose between getting their first attack in rounds 1 and 4, OR rounds 2 and 3 (either all the time or per-encounter). Or maybe something tied to initiative results that decides whether you get the extra attack in odd or even rounds.

 

[Celebrim]

The 1e initiative rules as written are, overall, an unholy mess best ignored if one wants to preserve one's sanity.

Yes. I know I should rewrite them but oh the pain of that job. I do miss segments and spell casting time though in later editions.

Agree that weapon spec. as written is too good, particularly at low level.

Yes, it is, though I've been balancing most things around the idea if that if they aren't better than a weapon specialized fighter then they aren't broken. Weapon specialization is I'm afraid like critical hits, something players will demand even if it is bad for the game. I couldn't take them out of 3e either; players just like the mechanics.

It's a great idea and gives single-class Fighters a nice leg-up, but it needs to kick in more slowly as levels advance rather than all at 1st-level; also should stop at single spec. (+1/+2). Weapon of choice for Cav's gets this slowly-accruing benefits piece right.

I have given thought to rewrite weapon specialization to come in incrementally like BECMI weapon mastery or the Kensai from OA.

The bonus to hit is not nearly the problem that the bonus to damage is. The reason I could leave Cav's weapon of choice in place and in some ways make it even more powerful and flexible is I didn't touch how much damage it did.

The one thing I will disagree with you on in this is I never played back in the day that Specialization was only for single classed fighters. The original UA article didn't specify that. Only a Dragon magazine article later corrected that. But even had I known about that at the time, I would have rejected it as yet more unnecessary homocentric rules in a game that already kicked down non-humans pretty hard. As long as you have weapon specialization, the worst situation of all is that it is just gravy for single-classed (mostly human) fighters since you are rarely from a meta perspective going to choose to play another race as single-classed fighter. Half-orc or dwarf maybe if you rolled 17's in Strength 18's in Constitution, but your end game is going to be staring you in the face in either case AND you can't have an 18/00 in Strength with those two races.

Either get rid of WS or assume it is ubiquitous. Don't silo it off into the most favored class and most favored race in the game as an exclusive.