Tuesday, August 24, 2010

No Gladiators


So right now, two of the books I’m working on were to feature gladiators in some shape or capacity. At least that was my original intention…I am now nearly 99% sure there will be no gladiators in either one.

I’ve written before about my mixed feelings on gladiators. On the one hand I love ‘em, and I have no idea why…maybe for the same reason I dig the NFL. Quite possibly I was some sort of ancient Roman fan in a past life…perhaps a bookie of some sort. Who knows…I seriously doubt I was a gladiator or I’d probably have very different feelings (and nightmares!) about the “sport.”

ANYway, in working up a gladiator class for B/X, I’m inclined to look at a variety of sources, including BECMI’s Thyatis campaign book, Bard Games’ The Compleat Adventurer, 2nd Edition’s Dark Sun campaign setting…hell, even the gladiator prestige class from the 3rd edition splat books. After reviewing everything, as well as a little thoughtful consideration (if not careful deliberation), I come to the conclusion that the gladiator as class doesn’t need to happen.

In B/X, a gladiator is a fighter. Period.

Strangely enough, in the end it comes down to a matter of game balance. Now personally I’ve never given much of a rip about game balance, at least not as a hard science (c.f. the last 2 editions of D&D). But as an idea…well…

The B/X fighter fights. He/She uses all weapons, wears all armor, rolls D8s for hit points, and advances in attack and save progression every 3 levels. They can build a fortress at any time, but any followers/hirelings/retainers need to be found and hired. There are no “gimmes.”

So then what’s a gladiator going to be?

Well, gladiators have used all types of weapons and armor. Hit dice should probably be D8. I can’t see their attack progressions as higher or lower than a standard fighter. And even slave gladiators may one day free themselves and buy a castle (as with the fighter, no “gimmes” seem appropriate). So what sets gladiators apart?

Um...special abilities?

So glads can fight with two weapons, or exotic weapons, or have Greco-Roman wrestling skills, or receive bonuses to AC when wearing certain armor pieces, or receive some bonuses to certain maneuvers or something?

Um…that just ends up being a “Fighter Plus.”

If that’s what a gladiator would be (a fighter plus bonuses) why would anyone play a fighter? Are the gladiators limited in level? Human classes aren’t normally limited in B/X. Do they have a penalty to XP? I can’t believe it would be very much…dwarves are only 10% more for a host of abilities, languages, and save bonuses. And elves are double, but cast spells as a magic-user of the equivalent level.

In the end, I just can’t justify making gladiators anything “special,” even though it might be fun to come up with various “level titles.” Gladiators are fighters…just like boxers are. Just like fencers were as recently as the 20th century (and, yes, professional fencers referred to themselves as “fighters” just like prize-fighters…check out the autobiographies of Aldo Nadi).

Much as I like the idea of a gladiator class, I’m afraid I’ll be leaving it on the cutting room floor of my B/X workshop. Damn it, B/X! Why do you have to be so un-forgivingly perfect in your system symmetry?!

; )

19 comments:

  1. I agree - you just don't need a class for everything. However, you could translate your love of gladiators into guidelines on modeling a fighter after the gladiators of Rome.

    ReplyDelete
  2. agree. People are too quick to make everything a new(usually unnecessary) class, rather than just stretching or reexamining the definitions of the existing ones. I'd much rather allow a player to define his character with a unique ability and trade-off every once in a while.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The only one of the above versions that works for me is that Compleat one and that only works because there is a skill system to distinguish the Gladiator from the Warrior. In B/X, they both really have to be Fighters.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Something I did find myself wanting, the other day, is good rules for running a chariot race. I may re-read my old copy of GURPS Rome to see if it has some ideas.

    This would be something gladiator specific that could be good content.

    Another trope common in gladiator fighting rules is "crowd bonuses" where the character enters a feedback loop, doing cool stuff to get the crowd on his side, which in turn cheers him and bestows some bonuses (or throws things to distract his opponent)

    ReplyDelete
  5. @ GragSmash: I know what you're talking about with the "feedback loop" and think it's a cool rule...for ANYONE fighting "as a gladiator" in the arena. I will probably include some arena-specific rules, but it won'tjust apply to a single class of character.
    : )

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think Matt's on to something with the guidelines. Plus it's an excuse to commission cool new gladiator art!

    ReplyDelete
  7. @ Jay: "Commissioning new art." Oh, God...my eyes, my eyes! They're melting out of my skull.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Absolutely nothing wrong with a wizard-gladiator or thief-gladiator. Some deities might allow, or even encourage their clerics to take part.

    I think many "gladiator" builds will forbid the use of heavy armor, in exchange for access to some exotic weapon like net and trident.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @JB -- Are you saying you don't want to go shopping for gladiator artwork? Spend hours staring at line art which clearly represents the repression of the artist?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Say, mister, you wanna see some gladiator art? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know what I mean?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I waffle on this. Sometimes I like the basic three (or four) classes with assorted fancy dress to represent character concept, sometimes I like having esoteric subclasses with ridiculous ability score requirements.

    I agree that B/X seems less amenable to this kind of spitwadding and kitbashing than OD&D, which virtually demands it. I just can't bring myself to houserule B/X significantly. Those two books aren't what I'd use for every campaign, but when I do use them, they seem perfect as is.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I like having some differentiation within the fighter class or it simply becomes pure vanilla. The important thing to remember really is that there is no free lunch. Player wants a bonus because they trained extensively in light armor? Fine, they can't use heavy armor, or operate in it within a penalty. Want a wrestler? Cool, character suffers hit penalties when using weapons for lack of as complete training with them. So on and so forth. It's hardly something that needs an entire class gutted and re-written though.

    ReplyDelete
  13. In Dark Sun the gladiator and fighters were different both in combat style, and in the boons they got at high levels, namely fighters became experts at mass warfare.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You are officially awesome for giving this a Nadi tag. One of my old (in both senses of the word, and this was back in ~'92) fencing instructors was either a student of Nadi's or of one of Nadi's students. I heard a couple of seriously badass stories. One of the fencing magazines also published his account of the duel with Contronei back then, before his autobiography was finally published.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @ Shimrod: thanks. I should mention one of these days that my other MAIN hobby is/was fencing...especially anachronistic-style (i.e. I am "old school" about my fencing technique as well). Hell, I even had an electric foil with an Italian grip (complete with wrist strap). My instructor (who used an anatomical grip himself) always gave me hell about that...especially considering I was fencing out of a French salle! But if it was good enough for Aldo Nadi...
    : )

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sweet. I did sport fencing from ~'88-'92, Foil, first French grip then Belgian. I later tried out SCA fencing, which was pretty darn cool (got to try out different historical weapon combinations, like rapier & dagger, and rapier & buckler), but the closest group was just too long a drive for me to keep it up. I then did LARP stuff from '95-2000, which wasn't as hardcore a discipline, but there were a good number of guys who were really into the fighting, and we had off-event weeknight sparring and such.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @ Shim: I never had the time, money, nor craftsman ability to invest in the SCA...just sport fencing for me. If my 36 year old knees weren't shot to hell, I'd probably still be doing it. As it is, I've been talking with a co-worker about starting a work-based salle. It's hard to get it out of the blood!
    : )

    Those rapier and buckler guys in the SCA are hardcore...watching them spar ALMOST sucked me in. However, in my B/X Duelist class (not posted to the blog), I've dis-allowed the shield. Hmm...I should probably reconsider....

    ReplyDelete
  18. The person I was learning from's primary style was rapier & cane; which was a heck of a guard to get through!

    Maybe just allow the Duelist a buckler? ie: a shield whose bonus can only apply to one opponent?

    On the Nadi note, I came across this cool thread last night, with some interesting recordings of 20th century duels, and a couple of awesome links. Thought you might be interested too.
    http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?p=34182662
    http://www.koryu.com/library/camberger1.html

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thanks for the link. I have both of Nadi's books, as well as a biography of his, so I've read his account of his duel in the past.

    The article on "facing cold steel" IS interesting...though strangely, the idea of facing someone with blade in hand makes me excited not fearful (strange because I have a gross fear of firearms and don't even like to handle them). I have always found the mensur schools fascinating, but I'm not sure my temperament is suitably stoic to let someone mark up my face.

    Ah, well...interesting reading for sure.
    : )

    ReplyDelete