The Bogatyr (AD&D Class)

What follows is a re-working of the Cavalier class, as well as my first attempt at "writing a class" for 1st edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. The class is somewhat specific to my own campaign setting, but should be adaptable to others. This class has NOT been playtested...yet.

Across the vast, undulating hills of the Inland Empire rides a lone figure; his armor, weathered but resolute, gleams beneath the endless skies of the Palouse. With unmatched fortitude, he roams this golden, open expanse, a defender of both its silent beauty and its humble people. His spirit is shaped by the land, being capable of enduring the harshest of storms and the fiercest of foes. He is a bogatyr, a "hero-knight," champion of the downtrodden, embodying courage and selflessness in a land as vast as his heart.

Like the thief-acrobat, the bogatyr is a "split-class;" many young fighters aspire to join the ranks of these hero knights, but few will ultimately win their spurs. To become a bogatyr, a character must earn 19,000 x.p. while advancing as a normal fighter. Entry to the class requires a minimum strength of 13, a minimum dexterity of 14, a minimum constitution of 15, and minimum scores of 10 in both intelligence and wisdom. In addition, the character must be proficient in the lance, the sword (either broad, long, or scimitar), and one horseman's weapon (the mace, flail, or military pick). In campaigns that use alignment, only good aligned characters can become a bogatyr.

While most bogatyri are human, both elves and half-elves can become bogatyr; however, non-humans have the same level limits as if they were members of the regular fighter class. A bogatyr with strength, intelligence, and wisdom exceeding 15 adds a 10% bonus to all earned experience points. The bogatyr is a subclass of fighter and uses the same combat, saving throw, and multiple attack tables, except as noted. They may use flaming oil, but never use poison.

Upon becoming a bogatyr, the speed at which the character learns new weapon proficiencies slows, as the bogatyr focuses on their "favored weapons" and horseman skills. As such, they only learn a new weapon every four levels of experience (so at 8th, 12th, 16th, etc.). 

Each bogatyr has three favored weapons: the lance, one type of sword (chosen from long, broad, and scimitar), and one type of horseman's weapon (chosen from mace, flail, and military pick). The bogatyr receives a +1 bonus to attack with any of these favored weapons, and this bonus increases as the character advances in level: +2 with the lance at 7th, +2 with the sword at 9th, +2 with the horseman weapon at 11th, +3 with the lance at 13th, +3 with the sword at 15th, and +3 with the horseman weapon at 17th. The maximum bonus for any of the bogatyr's favored weapons is +3. In melee combat, a bogatyr using their favored weapon makes multiple attacks as if they were six levels higher than their character level; at 12th level the bogatyr may make 5 attacks every two rounds with their favored weapons.

Mounted combat is the special province of the bogatyr and the character adds their level to damage inflicted by a lance when mounted (on foot, a bogatyr may use a heavy lance as an awl pike, or a light/medium lance as a spear; however, the character does not receive their damage bonus when dismounted). Regardless of the weapon being wielded, all bogatyri gain an additional +1 to their attack rolls when mounted.

Bogatyri are defenders of the weak and are experts at parrying; should a bogatyr choose to parry instead of attack they may subtract all "to hit" bonuses (including those from strength, magic, and "favored weapon") from an opponent's attack roll. The bogatyr may parry a number of opponents equal to their number of attacks for the round with the weapon they're using. 

Bogatyri are all but bred to the saddle, and are unlikely to be thrown from the saddle (85% chance to maintain their seat +1% per level after 5th). They have the same chance to avoid damage should they or their mount fall.

A bogatyr may vault into the saddle, even when wearing bulky armor, and have their steed underway in a single segment. The bogatyr can urge their mount to greater speed (add +2" to movement rate), and this pace can be sustained for up to 6 turns with no ill effects on the mount. A bogatyr's knowledge of horseflesh is such they they can determine the animal's value (and estimated hit points) with but a cursory examination; any steed selected and cared for as a personal mount by the bogatyr will have +2 hit points per hit die, up to the beast's normal maximum. At 7th level a bogatyr may handle and ride a pegasus as a steed, at 9th level they may handle and ride a hippogriff, and at 11th level they may handle and ride a griffon or similar creature (DM's discretion).

The legends of bogatyr courage range far and wide, and bogatyri are immune to fear, magical or otherwise. What's more, they project a protection from fear aura that extends to all allies within a 1" radius of the bogatyr. Bogatyri are especially strong-minded and receive a +2 bonus to saving throws versus any mind-affecting magic (charm, hold, hypnosis, possession, mind blast, etc.) and a +2 bonus versus all forms of illusion magic. The spirit of a bogatyr is nigh indomitable; if reduced to zero or negative hit points, they can continue to function (although they cannot make attacks); however, taking actions other then resting and binding wounds causes them to lose 1 hit point per round. When the bogatyr reaches a negative hit point value equal to 10 plus their hit point bonus from constitution, they perish.

All bogatyri follow a code of chivalrous conduct requiring them to be fearless in battle, steadfast in their defense of the weak, pious in their faith, and loyal to their allies. A bogatyr who waivers from these ideals, or whose alignment changes to non-good,  remains a bogatyr but ceases to advance (i.e. cannot earn levels). In addition they lose their immunity to fear, protection from fear aura, saving throw bonuses, and ability to function at zero and negative hit points. To regain their full bogatyr capabilities requires an atonement spell as well as a heroic quest to regain their honor...assuming, of course, they've already returned to a good alignment.

As a bogatyr's name and fame grow and spread, they will attract young (1st level) fighters wanting to learn from the bogatyr. One such fighter seeking training appears upon achieving 6th level; thereafter, 0-2 (roll 1d3-1) new fighters will join the bogatyr's train with every level earned. The number of such followers may not exceed the retainer limit set by the bogatyr's charisma score. These fighters need to be fed, cared for, and outfitted (with arms and steed) but otherwise have no expectation of payment from their master. Not all of these will become bogatyri (some may not meet the necessary requirements), and they may be dismissed at any time by the character. Followers that fall in battle or are dismissed may only be replaced by earning additional levels of experience. 

Experience Points        Exp. Level        10-Sided Dice        Level Title

19,001-38,000                        5                        5                     Knight Errant

38,001-77,000                        6                        6                     Knight Bachelor

77,001-140,000                      7                        7                     Knight

140,001-220,000                    8                        8                     Grand Knight

220,001-300,000                    9                        9                     Banneret

300,001-600,000                   10                      10                    Bogatyr

600,001-900,000                   11                    10+3                  Bogatyr, 11th level

1,200,001-1,500,000             12                    10+6                  Bogatyr, 12th level

300,000 experience points per level required for each level after 12th. A bogatyr of 13th level and above is sometime called a "Hero-Knight Commander." Bogatyri gain 3 hit points per level after the 10th, and bonuses from constitution no longer apply.

Three Bogatyri

*sigh* Cavaliers

This post is going to address several "bad ideas" found in the UA;  I mean, might as well get them all out of the way at once, right?

Weapon specialization is a VERY bad idea...it falls under the category of "how much have you been drinking, Gary?" Len Lakofka first introduced the idea of an archery specialist (character class) along with a lot of really crunch missile fire rules in Dragon #45; it's not terrible (we had an archer PC back in the campaign of my youth), but most of the crunch only serves to slow down the game (worrying about whether actions occur at the beginning, middle, or end of a segment? Come on, dude...we don't need to micromanage more than we already do). And it introduced the idea of "point blank range" (*sigh*), to Gygax and got him thinking about OTHER possible types of specialists. Hence, weapon specialization.

One can see the appeal in an existing (long run) campaign: high level fighters are watching all the other character classes get fancy spells and abilities for achieving those 'teen' levels and, yet, they're doing the same-old-same-old since they picked up that frost brand sword back at 6th level; 'where's the love?' they cry. Unfortunately, implementing weapon specialization wrecks the combat economy from the very beginning. A normal party generally has a potential damage output of 4.5 damage per PC (roughly) with the high strength fighter types making up for low damage wizard types. But this goes off the rails with weapon specialization and (especially) double specialization (both available at 1st level). A fighter with an 18+ STR (up to 18/50...achievable for most fighter types) and double specialization in longsword strikes with a +4 to hit and +6 to damage, as well as getting two attacks every other round...a potential average damage output of 21 points in round one (25 against a large sized creature). Average hit points for an ogre are 19...for a bugbear 15. First level fighters should not be able to chop down gnolls and hobgoblins with impunity, and if the DM ups the challenge of monsters thrown at 1st level groups, the other party members (who have the same combat abilities as ever) are far more likely to suffer. Plus PBR rules means that same fighter, even without double specialization had a potential average damage output 34 damage per round, due to double damage and adding STR bonuses (all part of the PBR rules) for shots fired within 30'. Back when we used the UA rules in my youth, we saw a LOT of bow specialists. 

Bad Len. Bad, bad, bad. 

Next terrible idea to discuss is the Method V version of generating ability scores. Ostensibly restricted for human characters, this method of ability generation all but assures you of achieving the scores you need to take whatever particular class you desire to play. Having also used this a bit when the UA first came out, I can tell you the PCs end up having a LOT of high scores, not just in the ones they need...far more so than any of the other methods found in the DMG. Rolling 9, 8, 7, 6, and 5 dice (and taking the best three) for the five most important abilities of a particular class are going to give you much better scores than the DMG's Method I which has you roll 4d6 across the board...and who cares if MV makes you roll 3d6 for one (ONE!) ability score when that ability is, more often-than-not, Comeliness?

Method V appears to have originated in Dragon #63 with the introduction of the barbarian class. Originally, the barbarian had NO minimum ability qualifiers (probably a good thing, considering it's supposed to replace normal man types like the nomad, caveman, tribesman, etc. in the MM), but instead determined its abilities through a new method: 9d6 for STR, 8d6 for CON, 7d6 for DEX, 3d6 for INT and CHA, and 4d4 for WIS. The sea change here, however, is the choosing of the class before rolling the dice (i.e. before seeing if the player has achieved the dice rolls needing to qualify for the class). Gygax discusses this decision in Dragon #67:

A few wondered why a decision to be a barbarian character had to be made prior to rolling dice for attribute scores. The answer is simple: The game is based on role-playing principles, and it is easier to do so with a course determined in the first place. Method I of Generation of Ability Scores encourages the player to choose a character profession from a predisposition rather than dice determined statistics. It is but a step removed from there to deciding on play as a barbarian subclass fighter and rolling dice accordingly. Frank Mentzer suggests that the 4d6 system could be employed with minimum score requirements of 16 strength and constitution, 15 dexterity, and a maximum wisdom of 15. That will work, but it seems to beg the question. Playing as a barbarian is a determined choice, not as one of several possibilities -- or a mere afterthought. This is a part of the whole concept...

...In all truth, the sub-class is not too powerful. It is, in fact, under-powered unless some very good rolls are gained in the areas of strength, dexterity, and constitution. To have real prospects for long-range play, the character must have 18, 16, and 17 respectively. That, Gentle Readers, is why they are given 9d6, 7d7, and 8d6 for those categories. A low-level barbarian has a better than average chance of survival without such high rolls, but at higher level, he or she is not going to do well unless strength, dexterity, and constitution combine to give high hit points, low armor class, and superior punishment potential.

Indeed. So the lesson, Gary, is "don't play a barbarian if you can't roll the high stats," NOT 'give the players the ability to play whatever they want.' Sorry. After 40+ years of game play (more than Gygax had at the time he was writing), I've seen what coddling does to one's game. That ain't the way to go.

So, now we turn our attention to the cavalier...a class that may have had an interesting kernel of an idea, but then worked hard to make it work with these other concepts (like weapon specialization) to its overall detriment.

I mean, that's sugar-coating things. The class is a travesty.

Here's what you get with the cavalier in its FINAL presentation (i.e. as it appears in the UA):

• It is not a subclass of fighter, but its own class...and it puts the paladin subclass beneath its banner (more on this later).
• STR, DEX, CON of 15+, INT and WIS of 10+ to enter; however, Method V in the UA makes these quite easy requirements (with 8d6, 7d6, and 9d6 dice rolls).
• Open to humans, high elves, gray elves, dark elves, and half-elves with NO LEVEL LIMITS. That's right...you don't like being limited to 6th or 8th level fighter? Be a cavalier (who still fights and saves as a fighter), and achieve whatever level you like.
• Hit points start at 1d10+3 at 1st level with D10s up through 10th (note: fighters only go through 9th) with +3 hit points thereafter (same as a fighter).
• Progressive "to hit bonuses" in lance plus two other weapons of choice (one a sword, the other a horseman weapon like a flail or military pick). This bonus starts at +1 and increases by +1 every six levels with no end. This bonus can be used defensively as part of a parry (and can also "parry" with a shield at the same time). Cavaliers may make multiple attacks as a fighter 5 levels higher than their actual level with these weapons of choice. High elves would be advised to select longsword.
• A bunch of horse/riding related skills that no one cares about in a dungeon.
• Each of STR, DEX, and CON are assigned a % number (similar to exceptional strength) and every level the cavalier rolls 2d10 and adds the number to the current percentage; when the number exceeds 00, they move up to the next number, eventually topping out at 18/00 in all three abilities (the percentage doesn't mean anything for DEX and CON, but an 18 is still an 18). How this interacts with the CON reduction from a raise dead/resurrection spell isn't stated, nor if these numbers can exceed racial maximums.
• Immunity to fear, +2 bonus to save versus illusions, a bunch of 90% chances to resist mind-effecting magic, etc.
• Ability to continue functioning at negative hit points (though cannot continue to fight).

All pretty swell, right? Like a fighter except more powerful (and potentially a LOT more powerful). You'd probably be thinking, man, that cavalier cat must need a ton of experience points to level up (as the barbarian does). HA! That's the kicker, son...the cavalier needs LESS x.p. to level up than the 'lowly' fighter...at least into the teens:

9th level --    fighter: 250,001       cavalier: 220,001

10th level --  fighter: 500,001       cavalier: 300,001

11th level --  fighter: 750,001       cavalier: 600,001

12th level --  fighter: 1,000,001    cavalier: 900,001

13th level --  fighter: 1,250,001    cavalier: 1,200,001

14th level --  fighter: 1,500,001    cavalier: 1,500,001

So, sure...after reaching 14th level, the cavalier will need more x.p. per level than the fighter to level up (an extra 50K per). But his 300K per level is still a damn sight faster than the ranger (325K), paladin (350K), or barbarian (500K). And to out-pace the fighter? With all those additional benefits? I mean, just what the hell was Gygax thinking? 

Elf? Probably.

This cavalier class makes the fighter all but meaningless in an AD&D campaign. It wrenches humans from their proper place at the center of the universe and allows elves to be ascendant (what is the incentive to play a human cavalier over a high elf?). Of course, it also radically changes the paladin class (now open to half-elves) giving the pally ALL the abilities of the cavalier PLUS all the abilities of the paladin (listed in the PHB), plus the ability to raise the character's CHA every level in the exact same manner as their STR, DEX, and CON.

This is not a complaint about "power creep;" this is simply stabbing the character economy in the heart with a red-hot (lance) point.

SO, NO. There will be no cavalier in my games, sir...not in the way they are detailed in the UA. Neither will there be any weapon specialization or "point blank range" for missile fire. Nor, will I be using Method V for the generation of ability scores (I remember axing that waaay back in high school...and having fierce arguments with my brother over the subject). No sir!  Method I will (continue to) do us just fine.

However, I might very well include the barbarian class...I'll just remove all minimum ability requirements for entry. You want to be a sickly member of your tribe/village, that's okay by me.

; )

You Don't Have To Run 5E

People just don't believe me (I guess). 

Over and over again I hear the same complaint; it generally goes something like this:

Man, I'd love to run an [old edition] D&D game, but I've had to bite the bullet and run 5E. That's the only game players seem to want (or know how) to play. 

Let me be perfectly crystal clear here: no, you NEVER have to run 5E (nor any other version of the world's greatest RPG) for anyone. 

Nope. Zero. 

These folks that are complaining are missing an important dynamic here: the Dungeon Master holds all the power.

"But-but-but...without players to DM, what IS a Dungeon Master? I must please my players or they will leave and there will be no game! I'll be left all aloooooone...!"

It is this kind of thinking that keeps you in chains.

Look: forget (for a second) that there is this internet thing that allows us to connect with (and find) players all over the world. Ignore that...forget about it.  Okay? Got it? Moving on:

Is anyone forcing you to be a Dungeon Master?

Seriously...blink twice if you are being forced to run D&D against your will; we'll send the cops to free you from your kidnappers. 

For the vast majority (if not 100%) of cases, we are choosing to be the Dungeon Master. For any number of reasons!  But "Dungeon Master" is not a profession (yes, yes...I know there are some people who earn money DMing...just keep wit my thread). You are not dependent on running D&D to earn your daily bread...something else is putting food in your mouth and a roof over your head. Being a DM ain't that thing...it's not like you will starve to death and become homeless if you stop being the DM.

We CHOOSE to be DMs to run a D&D game. No one is putting a gun to our heads. And just as we have the free will to choose to run D&D, we have the free will to choose which version of D&D we want to run. In fact, if you plan on taking up the mantle of a DM it is your responsibility to choose a version of D&D that you want to run, that is most comfortable for you to run.

Because if you don't, your game will suck.

That's the truth of the matter: a DM cannot be fully invested in their own game if it isn't a game they want to run. Instead, you'll end up frustrated, regretful, and resentful. You will grow fatigued when it comes to the act of creation, rather than inspired and energized. Your games will suffer, you will lose enthusiasm, you will draw out a long, slow, death and constantly looking forward to the time when the campaign finally, mercifully ends.  You may be a competent DM for the duration, but you will definitely NOT be the best DM you could be.  How could you be? When you hate coming to work every day, you either drag your feet (perhaps subconsciously hoping you'll get fired) or build up a smoldering ball of anger inside that kills all the joy you should feel at this pastime you've CHOSEN to do.

You MUST have joy in the act of being a Dungeon Master: not only of running the game, but of crafting the world and writing adventure scenarios. If you do not, your game will suck and your players will sense it no matter how good a job you do at hiding it (unless, I suppose, they're really obtuse players). Running a campaign is WORK. You must enjoy that work or you will not give it your best effort. True...you MAY be able to "steel yourself" and still put up a heck of a game. But it will NOT have the excitement and joyfulness it could have. And will, thus, suffer for it. 

"But-but-but...all my players are my FRIENDS!  It's not just about wanting to play D&D, it's about wanting to play D&D with THESE PARTICULAR PEOPLE. And they ONLY want to play 5E!  If I refuse to run 5E, my long time gaming group will disappear!"

Just what kind of slave are you?  Or, perhaps a better question, what kind of friends are these? 

I have friends. Most of them I've never gamed with. NONE of them are folks I currently game with. That doesn't stop us from being friends. And if they invited me to join their table and play a session of 5E with them, I might give it a whirl...if I didn't have any other pressing engagements that particular evening. 

But I wouldn't run 5E for them. I would not run a 5E campaign for them. 

And if they wanted me to run a D&D campaign for them...or ANY kind of campaign for them (that is an incredibly imposition, just by the way: hey, will you our Dungeon Master?)...and IF I had the time and the bandwidth to do so, it would be under MY TERMS.

Because I am the Dungeon Master.

I used to run a weekly game at a local bar every Thursday night. For the most part, the game I was running was B/X. For the most part, most of the players that would show up to the game were people I had never met before they sat down at my gaming table. Over time, the number of players grew to double-digit numbers. Then I stopped running a B/X game and instead started play-testing other things. The number of players shrunk. But new players comtinued to show up...people who had read about my game on my blog or who had heard about the game from a friend or someone who was bringing their significant other to the table. 

The game ended because I moved to Paraguay for three years. The game only ended because I ended it.

In my youth, I stopped running games because I stopped running games. It's not because "all my players left me." So what? You can always find players. People like to play games and people are (usually) pretty lazy...as long as all they have to do is show up and roll dice, well gee, that's pretty easy.  Hell, most players these days can't even be bothered to read the rule books! 

[damn illiterate culture we're sliding into]

The only person doing REAL WORK here, is the guy or gal sitting in the Dungeon Master's chair. So guess what? THAT's the person who's calling the shots on what game gets run at the table. There's not even the excuse (only semi-valid 10 years ago) that the old books are out-of-print. You can get all the 1E stuff now, print-on-demand! Or PDF if you want to go cheap and digital!

[sure, buddy...like you're really going to read the book]

Don't let would-be players manipulate you. "But 1E isn't supported with on-line tools like 5E," they whine. Yeah, because it doesn't need "support;" there aren't any 'character builds' in 1E. "But 1E was written by racist old white dudes." So what? Lots of games were. Does it stop other people from enjoying them? Have you ever looked at the guys who built the NBA, the NFL, the MLB, etc.?  "But 1E is all about killing people and robbing them!"  Look, I thought you wanted to play Dungeons & Dragons. The game is about finding treasure in a violent, action packed world. If you don't want to play that kind of game...that's OKAY. But that's the game I run.

[and please tell me, just by the way, is it somehow better to play a game that still involves murder but without the robbery? Because your murdering for "altruistic" reasons? Just WTF does THAT say about our cultural norms these days?]

There are some people who disagree with, or dislike, the premise of the D&D game. And that is fine...D&D is probably not the game for them. But if you (like me) are okay with that premise and want to run a game of Dungeons & Dragons, then do so. And do so in the manner...and with the system...that YOU find most comfortable and that best suits your needs.  Maybe that IS 5th edition. Or 2nd. Or B/X or one of its many clones. That's fine...YOU are the Dungeon Master. You call the shots.

But don't bitch and moan about it. Don't say you have to run 5th edition. That's a damned lie. No one HAS TO run 5E (save, perhaps, for WotC employees who have it stipulated as pat of their contract). One of the perks of being the Dungeon Master is that you're the honcho in charge...stop giving away your power!

Dungeon Masters, sorry to say, are a premium commodity: there aren't enough of them to go around. And if you don't have a DM and want one...that can be tough. Like it or not, you might very well end up in a 5E game if that's the only thing available in your area. And that's sad because 5E (especially its latest incarnation) ain't great. 

But if you're a competent and willing Dungeon Master? You're good to go. Just run the game you want to run, regardless of any demands of the players. If the game/system you're running is one YOU are enthused about, the players who are interested in that type of gaming will be fully engaged and committed. If they're not, they'll walk...and that's okay. Because the alternative is going to be ending up with a game that sucks.

Grow a backbone. Stop whining. Run the game you want to run.

Demi-Human Expansion

 AKA Cocaine Is A Hell Of A Drug

From Dragon Magazine, issue #96:

With expansion of the deities in the WORLD OF GREYHAWK Fantasy Setting, and by Roger Moore's articles herein so as to provide for the races of demi-humankind, there is no logical reason to exclude their clerics from play...

Elves, half-elves, and halflings -- being more nature-oriented than the other demi-human races -- deserve admission to the druid sub-class. Elves are now unlimited in their ability to rise in levels within the druidical ranks, just as half-elves have always been...

Elves are no longer prohibited from entering the ranger sub-class with the same reasoning that now opens the druid sub-class to that race....

E. Gary Gygax, April 1985

In the previous Dragon (issue #95), Gygax had outlined new level maximums for the various demi- and semi-human races for characters that have exceptional ability scores, i.e. prime requisites that exceed the normal maximum for their species. As such an event only occurs through the use of powerful magic (for example dozens or scores of wish spells), I see no problem with extending levels for those rare circumstances. 

Likewise, I have even less problem with the new rule that allows single-classed non-humans to boost their maximum level by +2 in a class that they could normally multi-class with (for example, an elven magic-user or dwarven fighter). This is sensible and a nice bennie for non-humans that seek to "focus" in a particular profession. An excellent addition to the game, while still allowing humans to maintain their place in the PC hierarchy by dint of their "unlimited potential."

SO...see those last two paragraphs? One thing: non-obtrusive. Second thing: good and welcome.

Now, let's talk about everything else. Because Gary seems to have been all coked up when he tweaked out the rest of this mess.

Players and DMs alike should take note of an impotant new rule change which is alluded to herein: player characters can be members of certain demi-human sub-races that are not permitted to PCs by the rules in the Players Handbook -- namely, the valley elf, grugach, drow, duergar, and svirfneblin. More will be said about this new development in subsequent articles. For now, however, players who choose to have drow, duergar, or svirfneblin characters should heed this general stricture: The alignment of such a player character may be of any sort, but daylight adventuring must be severely curtailed due to the nature of these creatures. Without special eye protection and clothing, these three demi-human types will suffer slight problems and sickness due to exposure to sunlight. 

No, Gary. No. No. No.

No, you cannot give players to play powerful demi-humans...creatures originally designed to provide additional challenge to high level PCs with their extra special abilities. Creatures with built-in magic resistance or natural spell powers or the capability of summoning elemental monsters regardless of class. No, Gary. You are high, man. You are NOT thinking straight.

Unfortunately, however, the drugs would continue to flow all the way through the publication of the Unearthed Arcana, when the final blow would be struck to the balance of non-human class relations:

The cavalier class is not listed on the tables for elves and half-elves, and the bard class is not listed on the table for half-elves, because level advancement in either of those classes is unlimited to any character with the requisite ability scores to qualify for the class.

Fucking cocaine, man. 

Anyone unfamiliar with the cavalier class as it appears in the UA will have to wait for the next post in this series to understand just how crap-tastic it is to give elves unlimited class advancement in a class that's...basically...a better fighter. That such a character could also be, say, a drow with a bunch of bonus bennies is a friggin' travesty. Oh Noes! So sad I have a -2 penalty to hit in daylight...we're exploring dungeons, jackass! If I'm getting into fights in town, there's already something wrong!

*sigh*

But let's talk about some of the more subtle problems here. Letting non-humans into the ranger and druid class is a thumbing of the nose at the (unstated) wold-building inherent in the original work. Rangers are not "woodsy heroes of good" (and even if they were, why the hell would a DROW get to be one?)...rather they are AVENGING KILLER HUMANS that hunt and murder the humanoids that threaten humankind. That rangers operate in the wilderness is because THAT'S WHERE THEY FIND THEIR PREY.  It's not the "civilized" ork or goblin that they're protecting (human) people from...it's the roaming bands of cannibalistic hostiles that would otherwise overwhelm fragile humanity. Regardless of your take on alignment, forcing rangers to be "good" places them in direct opposition to the listed (evil) alignment of their quarry.

And druids? Do we not remember what these are and where they came from?

DRUIDS:  These men are priests of a neutral-type religion, and as such they differ in armor class and hit dice, as well as in movement capability, and are a combination of clerics/magic-users...they will generally (70%) be accompanied by a number of barbaric followers....

From Supplement I, Greyhawk

...They are more closely attuned to Nature, serving as its priests rather than serving some other deity... Druids have an obligation to protect woodland animals and plants, especially trees. Unlike the obligation of lawful and good types towards others of this sort, the tendencu of druids will be to punish those who destroy their charges, rather than risk their own lives to actually save the threatened animal or plant. Druids will not slay an animal if it can be avoided, and they can never willingly or deliberately destroy a copse, woods or forest -- no matter how enchanted or evil it may be -- although they may attempt to modify such a place with their own magicks.

From Supplement III, Eldritch Wizardry

As explained in the PHB: "Druids can be visualized as medieval cousins of what the ancient Celtic sect of Druids would have become had it survived the Roman conquest."  These are very HUMAN  characters, aligned with neutrality/nature, not the frolicking Chaotic Good elves feasting on freshly hunted deer. If anything, druids and elves would probably live in a state of polite distance (if not Cold War style hostility), each in their own section of the forest...if not different forests altogether. That half-elves can beliong to the druid class (and the druidic-based bard class) speaks more to their human nature than any elvish part of their blood.  The same reason, really, that they can become rangers (although lacking the unlimited leveling potential of a fully human ranger). 

It's part of the neat thing about half-elves: they get more OPTIONS than an elf. Now you're giving me no reason to play a half-elf at all...except as a bard (and interestingly enough, all the half-elves in the campaign of my youth were bards, including my own PC). 

And thus a new trope was born...of elven archer-y rangers and leafy-pantsed druids. Man, it always bugged me the way 3.0 portrayed rangers and druids as elves, and now I know why (though I guess that's not as bad as dragonborn paladins...). Still, if you're going to allow elves to become rangers "by the same reasoning" that gives them unlimited druid access, why not go all the way and let halflings play giant-killer, too? What? They can't shoot a bow?

Idiocy.

Of course NOW ("officially") halflings can become CLERICS...something that wasn't allowed in the PHB (even for NPCs). And, why? Because Roger Moore came up with some demi-human deities for a specific campaign setting, that Gary wanted to throw his editor a bone (and some royalties) by using them as filler in the new UA book. AND he (Gary) extended the maximum clerical level obtainable by non-humans (PC and NPC alike) to the point that a dwarf or elf with 18 wisdom (not even a number requiring wish magic!) can obtain double-digit (!!) levels of experience...while the poor half-elf can't get higher than 8!

That's right: a dwarf cleric can reach a higher level of cleric than they can fighter. Cocaine.

Okay, again, understand the original world-building of the game. Originally, ONLY HUMANS COULD BE CLERICS...of the adventuring sort. Yes, you could find dwarf and elf clerics (see their monster description in Supplement I: Greyhawk), because it makes sense that a demihuman population worships their own gods and have their own priests. But those clerics were of limited ability: 

On the other hand half-elves, since their inception, have always been allowed to earn levels as an adventuring cleric: presumably because of their human nature. That they could not advance very high showed how their elven half limited their ability to advance within the (human/adventuring) church...even though they could make up for it through multi-classing (half-elves with OPTIONS had the largest number of multi-class possibilities of any race in the PHB). It is this same elven nature (presumably) that prevented the character from being a paladin (originally) even though they wee human enough to take up the mantle of ranger. 

[yet another reason why the UA's allowance of half-elf paladins is such a slap in the face]

Similarly, half-orcs were also given the ability to become clerics and cleric multi-classes...the only other non-human (besides the half-elf) with the capability. Again, the assumption is this is possible because of the character's semi-human nature...they have the blood of humanity in their veins and so can learn the ways of the human (adventuring) church. That these teachings could be perverted to evil and combined with the skills of an assassin speaks to their orcish side, I imagine.

But with the UA rules, no half-orc with max wisdom (14) nor half-elf (18) will ever equal a dwarf with even a 16 wisdom (not an elf with 17) because...reasons? Their racial deities are cooler, I guess?

*sigh* (again)

Hey! How 'bout this? Have you ever noticed that...with the advent of the new super-official Unearthed Arcana...even while demi-human class and level potentials were "expanded," a LOT of the original (i.e. PHB race-class combos) were actually reduced? Huh? What? That's right...here's the comparison:

   Dwarf fighter, STR 16 (or less) in PHB: maximum 7th level

   "Hill Dwarf" fighter, STR 16 (or less) in UA: maximum 6th level

   (High) elf fighter, STR 17 in PHB: maximum 6th level (7th with STR 18)

   High/Grey elf fighter, STR 17 in UA: maximum 5th level (6th with STR 18)

   Gnome fighter, STR 18 in PHB: maximum 6th level

   Gnome fighter, STR 18 in UA: maximum 5th level

   Half-elf fighter, STR 18 in PHB: maximum 8th level

   Half-elf fighter, STR 18 in UA: maximum 7th level

   (High) elf magic-user, INT 18 in PHB: maximum 11th level

   High elf magic-user, INT 18 in UA: maximum 10th level

So, yeah: adopt the new UA rules and all your "standard" races are going to suck a bit more. Hey, but at least they raised the maximum thief level a half-orc can achieve (still not "U" however, so why would a half-orc be anything bother being anything but an assassin?).

It's crap...it's all just a big pile of crap. I'm sure there are folks that LOVE the Unearthed Arcana rules and the newly expanded demi-human roles. Sorry...I'm not one of them. Here, I'll share another fun, personal anecdote with everyone: when I decided I wanted to start playing AD&D again (four-ish years ago), I decided to look at each D&D race, and their allowable classes, and figure exactly how high of level I wanted their potential to be based on A) how I viewed the species, and B) how it fit with my world/setting. This included looking at what I wanted their best fighting ability to be, the highest level of skill I wanted them to get to, the best spells they would have access to, and all the various "class abilities" (like the gaining of henchmen or "baron status" or whatever) they might achieve. I decided that I was not going to be a "slave to the rules," but would "make my own choices" as to what level/class restrictions would be allowed in my game. 

And what I found was that I liked ALL the classes and level restrictions AS WRITTEN. The PHB limits are perfectly appropriate, based on how I see my campaign world. Well, except I'd like a dedicated, "focused" non-human to be able to achieve a slightly higher level (and the UA '+2 to max' rule gets that job done). 

But I definitely don't want elven cavaliers and (adventuring) dwarven clerics and half-elf paladins in my game. Nor do I have any interest in making duergar and drow and svirfneblin available as PC race types...my players have yet to discover and explore the Underdark! Why should that content be available to players from the get-go? 

(Spoiler: it shouldn't)

There have, of course, been worse travesties in D&D since the UA was published. Allowing PC githzerai (hello, 2E Players Options!). And WotC's devolving the druid class into its current shape-shifting/no semblance of origin/bullshit is a clear sign that the designers live in Seattle and smoke way too much weed ("Dude, like, why don't we, like, lean heavy into the shape-changing thing? Like isn't that better than making them use a scimitar all the time?" "Yeah, dude. Like what if it were a dragon-born druid, and it could become, like, a REAL dragon." "Dude, cool.").  Yeah, far worse travesties. But adopting the UA rules wholesale into your 1E game is...pretty bad. You're going to end up with a lot of elven cavaliers.

(I mean, why wouldn't you? No level cap, right?)

No. The PHB works JUST FINE. Add the +2 bonus to max level for single-class demi- and semi-humans. Leave out the non-standard "sub-races" (terrible term, BTW, Gary). Leave out the cavaliers. If PCs end up taking their prime requisites into the 20s some point down the road then, sure...take a gander at the UA tables to get an idea at how many bonus levels to grant (here's an idea: +1 to max level for each point over 18). But, otherwise, just stick with the classics; stick with what works.

And remember folks: drugs are bad for your brain.

Must. Stop. Doing. Cocaine.

The Ugliness Of Comeliness

From Dragon Magazine, issue #67:

Frank Mentzer and Francois Marcela-Froideval are already hard at work, and I am being flooded with suggestions and ideas from these Good Gentlemen. Francois uses a "Beauty" attribute for his characters, and I have come to the conclusion that you might also like to use such a rating. Here are my thoughts...

E. Gary Gygax, November 1982

Oh, man...my urge to say something snarky regarding "the French" is nearly overwhelming.  However, Monsieur Marcela-Froideval was an important figure in introducing Dungeons & Dragons...and the general role-playing hobby...to French speakers through the Casus Belli magazine (reviews and translations of which can be found over on Prince of Nothing's blog), and that alone is worthy of my respect.  But, yeah, trust a Frenchman to come to the conclusion that a "beauty" attribute was needed in his fantasy game.

Gygax, though, should've known better.

Instead, his "thoughts" on the a beauty attribute led to the creation of a new, seventh ability score called comeliness, made official with the advent of the Unearthed Arcana. Comeliness appeared in the UA pretty much exactly as presented in Dragon, save that the effect of high level magical scores provided an effect similar to the new 2nd level illusionist spell fascinate (in the original Dragon article, Gygax lists the effect as similar to charm person). For those who've never heard of this new ability score, I'll note that it never appears in any other edition of D&D...the shelf life of this 'wonderful addition' lasted all of  four years in "officialdom."

To understand why I am so sour on comeliness, I need to first explain why I rather LOVE the charisma ability score. Charisma, while an abstract attribute, is still an excellent way to measure an very real trait possessed by real life humans.  We see examples of people with (and without) "charisma" all the time: it is that "likeability" factor, that je ne sais quoi, that "star power" that some people possess...and that others don't. It is one of those "intangibles" that coaches of pro-sports teams talk about particular players having...or lacking. It is not dependent on good looks...it is not dependent on talent. It is something else that some people have in greater measure than others...though it is impossible to measure.

The D&D game provides the mechanics needed to measure it with the charisma attribute. Mechanically, it impacts reaction rolls, loyalty, and morale of one's followers...all things that you want and need to measure in a fantasy adventure game. Remember that D&D did not come out of the tradition of the lone, cinematic hero-guy/gal, taking on the army of baddies single-handedly.  It was a game created by and for war gamers who had grown up reading adventure fiction that dealt with leaders of men and methods of outfitting and leading others into unknown dangers. Bob Howard's stories are filled with these forceful personalities (Conan is always at the head of some group of pirates or barbarians or mercenaries...and neither Belit nor Sonya of Rogatino are shown as slouches in the leadership department), and the Lord of the Rings books...an obvious inspiration for fantasy war-gaming...have plenty of "charisma" examples from Aragorn who is portrayed as "fair though appearing foul."

The charisma ability is plenty efficient in providing for the mechanical needs of the game, i.e. how one interacts with (potentially) friendly NPCs, and how one attracts (and retains) followers and henchmen. A character can have whatever appearance the player wants them to have...the handsome assassin with the charisma of 7 is still going to be off-putting and nasty, while the grizzled paladin has that "air about him" that puts folks at ease and makes them want to fight by his side.

*sigh* I could (and someday should) wax on about charisma, and how it impacts the game by the character classes that have high charismas...whether due to minimum requirements (druids, paladins, and bards) or for those choosing NOT to use the ability as a "dump stat" (say, fighters, magic-users, and thieves).  But enough digression...this post is about lambasting comeliness, not lauding comeliness.

In the campaigns of my youth, we of course used comeliness. My long-run PC had a comeliness stat even before I'd laid eyes on the Unearthed Arcana. I'll relate the anecdote from my personal history for the sake of posterity:  my best friend and co-DM, Jocelyn, called me up one afternoon in the summer of 1985; I was in my kitchen, my parents (probably) both at work.  She told me (excitedly): hey, I need you to roll a D20. What for? I said. I'll tell you afterwards, said she. So I ran to my room (because my telephone was on a cord, naturally...this was '85), and returned to the kitchen, diligently rolling the D20 on the kitchen counter, with zero idea the reason.

The die roll came up a "1." Since this was possibly some sort of saving throw, I re-rolled rather than tell my DM the result (sue me...I was 12 years old at the time), and the die came up a 20. "20," I said (figuring this was a great number). No, that won't work, she said...you have to re-roll. Now I was wondering if I should have gone with the "1."  But I rolled again, as instructed, and the die roll came up an 18. "18," I said. Okay, you have a comeliness score of 18, she told me. "What the heck is that?"

You see, Jocelyn was often the first one of our group to pick up the new book or adventure module...she had a lot of ready spending cash (care of her family), and easy access to a nearby (large) bookstore. So she had picked up the new Unearthed Arcana (before any of the other members of our group had even heard it existed) and was making sure all our regular characters had the new comeliness score duly recorded. Rather than clue us in to what we were rolling (by having us roll 3d6) she was having us roll D20s and only taking numbers that fell between 3 and 18 (us kids having little concept of "bell curves" at the time, having skipped over that boring section of the DMG).

So, for most of my 1E career in my youth, I was playing a half-elf bard with an 18 charisma and a 21 comeliness, a character who could easily fascinate any female character he met unless they possessed a wisdom score of 15+. One can imagine how that went. 

[we had far more "urban" adventures than dungeon]

But without going into the sordid details (which, one could argue, detracted from the overall gameplay), I will point out that plenty of other PCs in the game had outrageously high scores, and not just from "mystery D20 rolls." It wasn't long before ALL of us regular players (Jocelyn, Scott, Matt, and I) had our own copies of the UA, and we all incorporated comeliness as part of our standard chargen process. And being adolescents, comeliness scores became very important. 

To the point that we stopped seeing certain types of characters. Gone were dwarves, gnomes, and half-orcs. Halflings only appeared as NPC henchfolk (or the occasional thief-acrobat) and were generally considered "comic relief." Most characters were in the high teens for their COM score...a lot of elves and half-elves. My character didn't even have the highest score...one PC had a 22 comeliness. And these weren't even results from fudging dice rolls (though I would not be surprised if some were...); rather, characters with low comeliness scores would be deemed as unplayable.  No teenage kid wanted to play a character that was "plain to average" in looks...let alone "homely" or "simply ugly." Regardless of the player's own self-esteem, the teasing was merciless.

And consider that we were playing D&D as it was originally meant to be played. That is, we were not doing the "new school" thing of portraying some "character" with their tragic backstory of needing to overcome being the Ugly Duckling or whatever. For us, we were exploring the D&D game world and the character was only our vehicle...so if the character was ugly then WE were ugly.  Why would anyone want to embody that?  We were playing escapist fantasy not because we wanted to pretend to be something we were not...we were playing escapist fantasy because we wanted to do things we couldn't do in real life: Cast spells. Fight monsters with swords. Climb sheer cliffs. Etc.  No one wanted to be judged (negatively) on their looks. Shit...we could get that in our normal, daily life!

Using comeliness in-play...and especially high comeliness with its mechanical effects...led to the game becoming different. No longer was Charisma a wonderful stat for modeling "leaders of men" and "commanding presence." Instead, when interacting with NPCs (and with other PCs!) we were more concerned with that O So Important first impression...and just how much mileage one could get out of manipulating someone before the comeliness effect wore off.  It became, in fact, a method of PVP for the players at the table, a weapon to be wielded both directly and indirectly (through the ability to influence NPCs)...a method of 'one-upping' other players, promoting rivalries, creating resentments, grudges, and hurt feelings.

Comeliness contributed to the decline and eventual death of our campaign.

Yeah, that probably sounds overly dramatic...and probably is (I am writing of events that occurred some 30+ years ago). Definitely it was more than just "comeliness" that led to the breakdown of that first, long-running game of AD&D between me and the friends of my youth. However, let me add one more anecdote from my history:  after my gaming group broke up (shortly after we'd all entered high schools), I got the urge to play D&D again...probably around my sophomore or junior year of high school. And I started a new 1E campaign, running a game for my brother and a couple of his friends.  It lasted a few months...long enough for the PCs to get up to level 12 or thereabouts (we were doing the Giants-series when we all lost interest or got too busy to continue). But we didn't use comeliness in that game at all. In fact, I'm not sure I allowed ANY of the UA rules for that campaign...though I might be misremembering.

Anyway.

Regardless of what I may or may not incorporate from the rest of the Unearthed Arcana, I have long since determined that comeliness is NOT an ability score I want in my game. If I want a handsome prince or beautiful princess in my game, I'll put them in without any such score. If I want a more "fairytale feel" to the campaign, I'll link their outward beauty to their inherent Charisma; if I want something more "true to life," I won't. But I really don't see any benefit to including an objective measurable stat for how pleasant or unpleasant a person appears.

This is a funny illo, though.

Besides...isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder? Just because Gimli has a thing for ancient elf queens, doesn't mean most dwarves wouldn't prefer dwarvish women, right? Wouldn't a halfling be a bit off-put by the sheer size of a human? Why one stat, one scale, for all species? That's not how the biology of species works...a cat doesn't eye-up a good-looking dog. Jeez.

Comeliness...out.

Unearthed Arcana Revisited

From Dragon Magazine, issue #59:

What follows is strictly for the AD&D game....

With plenty of labor and even more luck, there will be an ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS expansion volume next year. It will be for both players and DMs, with several new character classes, new weapons, scores of new spells, new magic items, etc. What will follow here in the next few issues is a sampling of the material slated for inclusion in the expansion.

E. Gary Gygax, March 1982

There would be no expansion volume in 1983. Nor in 1984. The "next book of monsters" (also mentioned in the article) which was to be released afterwards, instead appeared in 1983 under the title Monster Manual II. Presumably, being mainly a compilation of new monsters appearing in prior publications...especially TSR adventure modules...it was a much easier matter of transcribing existing creature entries in alphabetical order. 

Unearthed Arcana, the 'Book That Was Promised,' was finally published in the summer of 1985.

Pause for a minute. Why am I writing this? Just what is this all about?

Let's talk some straight talk for a moment:  as long time readers know, I got back to playing AD&D again in November of 2020. Since that time, I've introduced a lot of young 'uns to the game, written a lot of adventures, and spent a bunch of time spreading "the Good News" of the game (as I see it). However, in all that time...now entering my 5th year of 1E campaigning...I've limited my game to the only books I consider good and essential, namely the PHB, the DMG, and the various monstrous manuals (MM, FF, and MM2). The adventures I've written (approximately 6 or 7) have all carried the notation that I strongly recommend against using the rules in the Unearthed Arcana.  I haven't even cracked the UA in front of my kids; I've mentioned the book to Diego, but given only a cursory (and negative) overview of the tome to him. Neither of my kids know much...if anything!...about it, which should come as a surprise considering just how much lore they know of the history of the D&D game, its publications, and the various changes its seen over the decades.

[f.w.i.w.  my kids get curious about stuff and I tend to be a wind-bag of a talker]

Just why have I excised the Unearthed Arcana from my 1E table? It's not like I never used it...as I mentioned the first month I started this blog (!), we absolutely adored the UA, back in the day, and implemented every rule it had: Comeliness, traveling spell books, social standing and birth order, bronze armor, etc., etc. If it was in the UA, it was in our game. Chain lightning was a staple spell. Heward's Handy Haversack was a staple magic item...as were magic quarterstaffs (had to have something for all those thief-acrobats in our game). My brother ran multiple barbarian characters. We used weapon specialization; maybe even double specialization. There were Hierophant Druids. We replaced the unarmed combat system in the DMG with the simplified version found in the UA. I mean, we used it all.

So why have I not used it at all since returning to the King of Games, four years ago?

There is a stigma to the UA these days. The Grogtalk folks refer it as "The Book That Shall Not Be Named." Published in 1985 it is deep into the decadent years of TSR (post-Mentzer Basic, post-cartoon, post-DragonLance)...the years that led to the spiraling issues that would (eventually) cost Gygax his company. There is a commonly held belief that the Unearthed Arcana was solely cobbled together from past Dragon magazine articles in an effort to bring one more Gygaxian cash-cow to the table to save the company from debt. This idea is echoed in the Wikipedia article on the book:

The original Unearthed Arcana was written by Gary Gygax with design and editing contributions by Jeff Grubb and Kim Mohan, respectively, and published by TSR in 1985. Gygax reportedly produced the book to raise money as TSR was deeply in debt at the time. He announced in the March 1985 issue of Dragon magazine that Unearthed Arcana would be released in the summer of that year. He proposed the book as "an interim volume to expand the Dungeon Masters Guide and Players Handbook", as the information was spread out in several places and difficult to keep track of. Unearthed Arcana was to include material previously published in Dragon, written by Gygax and updated and revised for the book.

While the latter part of that quote is indeed from Gygax's own pen (in March of '85), the inference is clearly inaccurate...as stated at the beginning of this post Gygax had already planned on an expansion volume in 1982, and the articles he penned over the next many issues (which would compose the bulk of the UA) were written expressly for the book that was coming. This was not some sort of cash grab...THAT statement in the wikipedia article is accredited to a 2006 article in The Believer magazine, in which the author (Paul La Farge) asserts:

By 1984, the company was $1.5 million in debt, and the bank was ready to perfect its liens on TSR’s trademarks: in effect, to repossess Dungeons & Dragons. Gygax got word that the Blumes were trying to sell TSR, and he returned to Lake Geneva, where he persuaded the board of directors to fire Kevin Blume and published a new D&D rulebook to raise cash.

But La Farge's research is suspect. He notes in his footnotes that the book was Unearthed Arcana, a tome that "introduced the gnome race;" a gross misstatement (the gnome had been around since the 1978 PHB), done mainly, I believe, for effect (the gnome race was rather reviled by 2006, due to changes of characterization over the years). But I draw this conclusion because much of the article seems snarky and sensational.

While TSR was definitely facing financial difficulty due largely to mismanagement, it is a fact that Gygax had every intention of publishing Unearthed Arcana long before 1984. His time spent in California (which would result in three seasons of the Dungeons & Dragons cartoon...from '83-'85) was the main reason for any delay in publishing the projects that envisioned...and I believe that, and the personal issues he had during this time (his 1983 divorce and his new "Hollywood social life") contributed as much as anything to the declining quality of the products with his name on it post-1983.

But much, if not MOST, of the UA was created before 1983. Not only that, much of it was play-tested...if one is willing to believe the statements/updates given in Dragon magazine in 1982.

And so...perhaps this material is worthy of the game?

That's the conclusion that I am...slowly (and somewhat reluctantly)...beginning to come to. Why were the acrobat, barbarian, and cavalier featured in the D&D cartoon (first airing in September of 1983)? Because, they provided a good advertising vehicle for a planned book that had already published and tested said classes (the last one, the cavalier, being found in the April '83 issue of Dragon). I have no compunction with the feelings that the UA, as published, was somewhat rushed, slap-dash, and error-riven. But much of the stuff in the book...both its ideas and its mechanics/rules...were far less so. 

Rather, they were thoughtful or interesting...and worth a gander.

What took me down this particular rabbit hole? Well, a couple weeks ago I had this "great" idea of statting up the "D&D kids" for the 1E system. But while most every one of them is easy enough, Diana the acrobat was throwing me for a loop. And since I certainly didn't want to use the UA (because of the reputation the thing is currently carrying), I figured I'd 'go back to the source' and check out the original Dragon article that had been "ransacked" for Gygax's "company needed cash infusion." And what I found (in issue #69) was an article, pretty much word-for-word the same as in the UA, and written by Gygax himself (whereas, I had assumed most if not all the UA material had been culled from the work of other authors). There was also this introduction:

"This time, rather than reveal a new sub-class such as the Barbarian, I though the Enlightened Readership of this splendid vehicle might enjoy another concept. What you are about to read is the information so far developed pertaining to a split class. This a first. To my knowledge, such a possibility has not been expressed before in any similar game system. There is nothing similar to it in the AD&D game system although choosing to change from one profession to another is not too unlike the idea. Let us then get to the business at hand. I bring you, without further ado, the official new split-class for thieves."

"This time?" "The information so far developed?" "Official new split-class?"  This was not some highlight piece deemed to have enough traction for inclusion in a cash grab book...this is a sneak peak at mechanics already in development! By Gygax himself! In January of 1983!

I quickly found a copy of Gygax's "barbarian" from July of 1982 (issue #63); more information helped crystalie the picture:

"As usual, I am working on too many projects at once, and each gets a bit of attention but seems to never get done. At some point quite a few should suddenly be completed, and my productivity will seem great indeed. Meanwhile, I have dusted off the barbarian character class which the testers have enjoyed the most of the new classes I have proposed for the expansion of the AD&D rules. While the other classes seem to need more work, barbarians were instantly used and enjoyed by those eager for a change. Now you, Gentle Readers, have a chance to test the class for yourselves and see if you agree."

Okay, so...wow. This was a project in active development since at least 1982. It was being worked on in conjunction with other projects (in issue #59...March 1982...he details these as including the Monster Manual II, the never-would-be-released T2, The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun (WG4), and yet another adventure called "Wasp Nest -- The City State of Stoink" which I don't think I've ever heard of). It is being tested in play. It is to be part of an actual, planned expansion to the AD&D rules.

And what, exactly, was my problem with this rule set again? Re-reading the barbarian entry, I don't see anything terrible with it. Nothing over-powered, considering the x.p. cost...and while the magic item restrictions can be 'bought off' at higher levels (the levels where those restrictions can really matter), doing so negates many of the barbarian's special abilities. And above 8th level, a normal fighter will be going up TWO levels for every ONE of the barbarian. 

No looking back, my main issue with the barbarian appears to have been all the "world building" required to use the class effectively...and that's exactly what I like about it now, in my (more mature) elder years. This bit (from the UA):

Cavemen, dervishes, nomads, and tribesmen (see Monster Manual, "Men") are now considered barbarians.

...is, frankly, amazing. And says a LOT about how Gygax expected DMs to approach the AD&D campaign in their individual settings.  The standard classes are all a part of a civilization; and everything outside of that civilization are considered superstitious, magic-fearing savages. Political correctness be damned; in a post-apocalyptic fantasy setting, I kind of like this...a lot!  And it makes the humanoid tribes even MORE savage. Something to think about.

But...okay. The barbarian is cool. The thief-acrobat is cool. What about the other stuff: things like comeliness, weapon specialization, and the (*shudder*) cavalier class? 

Here's the thing: going through these Dragon magazines, issue-by-issue, it's clear that not al of the items that ended up included in the Unearthed Arcana were created equal. The new attribute Comeliness, which I detest immensely, was simply a rambling thought exercise by Gygax as part of an update/letter to the "Loyal Readers" regarding the state of the project (see issue #67). Weapon specialization, another poorly thought out concept, is simply mentioned in passing (after a larger section featuring new illusionist spells) as a conversation Gygax had with Len Lakofka with some hastily sketched out (and un-tested) rules, based on Len's unofficial "archer" class. There is no "double specialization" mentioned. 

[sorry, folks, I'm not a big Lakofka fan]

And the cavalier? It was not an off-the-cuff musing like some of these other articles. But it IS different from how it finally appears in the Unearthed Arcana. For one thing, the cavalier is a sub-class of fighter...as it should be!...a horseman specialist based on the chivalric knights of myth and legend.  It is, however, generally a mess, trying to shoehorn the half-baked weapon specialization rules with the theme-specific weapon restrictions, and focus on mounted (i.e. lance combat). Except that elven cavaliers (another concept I abhor) get archery specialization because...elves?  It's pretty dumb/bad, though perhaps not as terrible as the UA version which changed the nature of the paladin class, all for the bad.

However, Gygax admits the cavalier is only half baked; again this is April 1983 and life was pretty complicated (he'd just finalized an acrimonious divorce with his wife of 25 years in March); in his intro to the class he writes:

"As usual, your comments are invited. Input is most desirable, for what appears here is the basis -- not the final form -- of the sub-class. As is also usual, it is unlikely that comments sent to us will receive a direct reply -- there just isn't anyone on staff at this time to handle such work. While I am working to put together AD&D material, and Frank Mentzer is engaged in the revision and expansion of the D&D game system, the Industrious Staff of TSR are seekingpersonnel to fulfill the needs of you, the Understanding Readers. Thus, we should soon have the wherewithal to respond properly to all correspondence. Meanwhile, suffer along and accept my general thanks to all of you."

Sure, Gary. On to California.

So, the Unearthed Arcana is a mixed bag. New weapons, spells (perhaps), barbarian and acrobat classes? Good. Cavalier, comeliness, and weapon specialization? Frigging awful. Yes, the thing was rushed to production without adequate play-testing (or, even, proof-reading) probably because the company was strapped for cash to pay the bills. But this was a planned project, and much of it has Gygax's imagination and good design work imprinted in it. 

And, for me, that's enough to give the UA a second try. Not the whole book, mind you, but much of it. I will, of course, want to go through the old Dragon magazine articles and see which ones need pruning, which ones are unworkable, which ones were 'good enough' before other fingers stepped in to "help" get the book together. It isn't a big deal...something to amuse myself (culling these idea). And, hopefully, something to amuse my players.

[it is, perhaps unfortunate that I have altered the 1E magic system for my home game, as the plethora of new spells and the spell book rules (not to mention cantrips and apprentice MU mechanics) would be far more useful with "standard" 1E. But my system works too good to change it just to add a handful of beloved spells (like dismissal, chain lightning, and teleport without error). Well...we'll see. We'll see]

All right, that's enough for now. My expanded mind has been emptied, and I'll try to get some sleep. Signing off from Mexico!

; )

Just look at this geezer...

Happy Thanksgiving!

I am currently in Orizaba, Mexico (and very tired from a loooong journey here...both my flight and our bus were delayed getting here).  For my fellow Americans who celebrate the holiday, I wish you nothing but happiness for all that the next two days (generally) bring: good food, family gatherings, parades and football on the TV and...hopefully...a bit of tabletop gaming.

My best to everyone. I'll write as I can.

Uni's Lost Horn

Quick note before we get into it: just want everyone to know that after a bit more reading/perusal, I returned the new 5.5E Dungeon Master's Guide to my local B&N and got my money back ($55 and change). Just a no-brainer when you consider A) I play 1st edition, and B) the book is a steaming pile of garbage. 

One of the last straws that broke the camel's back? Hey, they had Warduke's helmet as a possible magic item!  Here's the description (the accompanying illustration made it clear who it belongs to):

Dread Helm

Wondrous Item, Common

While you're wearing this fearsome steel helm, your eyes glow red and the rest of your face is hidden in shadow.

Check that out...that's all it is. A magic item that has a cosmetic, non-game related effect. It just makes your eyes glow red.

But don't feel like this is something to pawn off on your henchman...this is a common magic item. Which means it can be purchased in any old town.

Common magic items can often be bought in a city or town. 

Cost for a common magic item in 5th edition? 100 g.p. As compared to mundane, non-magical plate armor which costs 1,500 g.p. WTF? Is that verisimilitude? NO. But, hey don't worry, because the book tells you plain and simple:

The Game is Not an Economy. The rules of the game aren't intended to model a realistic economy, and players who look for loopholes that let them generate infinite wealth using combinations of spells are exploiting the rules. 

Of course, what if your players are those "optimizers" who enjoy finding loopholes, just like these? Aren't we supposed to be "making it fun for everyone?" Well...

Rules Rely on Good Faith Interpretation. The rules assume that everyone reading and interpreting the rules has the interests of the group's fun at heart and is reading the rules in that light.

I think you're making a BIG assumption there...an assumption that anyone is going to READ these rules. Rules that are subject to arbitrary change by the DM, so they really don't matter. Hell, it doesn't even matter if the DM knows the rules. Look what's here on the same page (this is Chapter 1, by the way):

Knowing The Rules

You don't have to be an expert on the rules to be a good DM. Of course, itt's helpful to be familiar with the rules especially the ones in the Player's Handbook. But facilitating fun is more important that implementing the rules perfectly. If you're not sure how to apply the rules in a situation, you can always ask the opinion of the players as a group. It might take a few minutes, but it's usually possible to reach an answer that feels fair to everyone, and that's more important than a "correct" answer.

Just about every sentence in that paragraph is incredibly, seriously wrong. And why do they put the word "correct" in quotation marks? Because what is "correct" is just a matter of opinion? Truth is up for interpretation? Yeah, it feels like I've heard that a lot lately.

ANYway...if I'd read that "knowing the rules" sidebar sooner, I would have dumped the book even faster. But then I couldn't have given you folks my rant-y review. Ah, the things I do for my readers!

Moving on.

As I noted earlier, one of the things that intrigued me about the DMG5.5 (before disgust overwhelmed anything else) was the inclusion of the "D&D kids" from Saturday Morning cartoons. I was a big fan of those cartoons growing up...in fact, if hard-pressed, they might edge out Thundarr the Barbarian as the all-time favorite of my childhood. Certainly, the Dungeons & Dragons cartoon was the ONLY cartoon that made me set an alarm Friday night so that I wouldn't miss it in the morning!

I am of the opinion that THAT particular IP is an un-mined resource for nostalgia (and revenue)...so when I saw that they were throwing those dudes into the artwork and "lore" of 5.5 I was kind of thrilled. And, THEN, I became curious...extremely curious...about one particular image:

See that odd duck over on the left? That's "Niko."

Who the heck is this Niko person?

This illustration led me down a rabbit hole of internet Googlings, till I found the answer: no, Niko was not a character from some un-watched (or un-developed) TV episode. She is a cleric character created for use with an adventure module featuring the D&D kids that WotC produced as part of their 50th anniversary celebration. She even has a "magic weapon" of her own, imaginatively called "Niko's Mace" (though that item is not in the DMG5.5, unless I somehow missed it). 

That adventure (which I'd never heard of before yesterday) is called Uni and the Hunt for the Lost Horn. And after much, much scouring of the inter-webs, I was able to find a PDF copy. Here's my capsule review (in the style of Mr. Bryce Lynch):

This 48 page adventure uses three pages to describe a tiny "demi-plane" dungeon consisting of five encounter areas. It is for 5th edition, which means it's trash anyway, but at least it does not provide any personality, background, or role-playing notes for the seven pre-generated characters included with the module, so your table should be mercifully spared faux-acting and cobbled drama. My childhood has been mined for profits and my life is a living hell.

*ahem*

The adventure seems loosely based on the Episode 4 of the cartoon series, "Valley of the Unicorns" (yes, yes, I am a tremendous nerd). Which I remember as being quite good. It has a demon idol, a great villain, a sinister plan, a Daern's Instant Fortress, miserable de-protagonization of cutesy fairy tale creatures, an appearance of the Imprisonment spell (one of the more awesome moments of the series, IMO), and a pack of worgs. I mean, it's very "D&Dish," even if the characters aren't looting the hell out of everything.

ANYway, the Lost Horn adventure isn't nearly as cool. A couple of lame fights, maybe some double-crossing with a bullywug chieftain (?), and a deus ex machina at the end where Venger comes in and finishes the fight. I mean, it's really pretty dumb.

But what it DOES have is, again, nice artwork illustrating the artist's idea of what the grown up D&D kids look like. And that's pretty nifty (though, honestly, I don't think they needed to turn Bobby into a gym bro; I see a lot of crushed Coors light cans in his dorm room...). That's neat...un-tapped potential finally being tapped (as they probably should have done for the D&D movie).

"Battle Medic," natch

I don't even mind Niko terribly. I can already tell that the inclusion of a new cast member will raise the hackles of some fans (doesn't it always?) especially as her obvious "diversity" will be interpreted as, well, obvious diversity (which some people dislike). But let's be honest here: if the kids were an actual D&D party, they would want a cleric, no? None of them have much in the way of first aid training and any scrape from a bullywug spear is likely to get infected (and so many of these kids insist on roaming the wilderness in shorts and bare arms...) and lead to an untimely death. Well, maybe...I suppose the cartoon's not called Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Perhaps tetanus isn't a thing in "the Realm."

[whether it is or isn't, I have to admit she's pretty superfluous. This IS 5E, after all, so it's not like people die easily. Also, no undead in the adventure]

So...grown up kids? Cool. Everything else? Not so much. 

And reading through this reminded me this isn't the first time WotC has tried to stat out the D&D kids for the game; sometime circa 2007, they sold a special DVD box set of all the cartoon episodes...which I own. In addition to the disks and a bunch of ink drawings and collectable cards, the box contained an actual honest-to-goodness adventure (written for DND3) with write-ups of all the characters, plus Venger (an 18th level, half-infernal for the curious)!

Unlike, Uni's Lost Horn, the PCs in this adventure are STILL KIDS.  And they're 7th level adventurers (in Lost Horn, they're only 4th level). The adventure (credited to Matthew Sernett) is called Beneath the Blade of Sword Mountain, which kind of kicks the ass of "Uni's Lost Horn." Oh, you want the capsule review again? Here it is:

This twenty-six page adventure uses nine pages to describe four encounter areas, including each area's individual battle map. Most of the remaining pages are taken up with full page artwork of the D&D characters. The writing is extremely tiny, the page size is the same as a DVD case, and I am so old I needed a magnifying glass to read Mr. Sernett's name in the designer credits.

No cleric in this one (and no undead either or the D&D kids would be So Screwed!). Interesting that in addition to a full 3E stat block (skills! feats!), each character gets a paragraph of text describing their personality and relationship with the other PCs...role-playing notes, in other words. Which are completely absent from the Uni's Lost Horn adventure.

Why am I bothering to write about all of this? Well for one thing, it's Friday and that seems to be the day I have more free time for blogging (though I made time for yesterday's bile. Man, did it get my dander up!). But also, because it's put an idea into my head: maybe I want to do my own version of the D&D kids...for AD&D, of course...along with some sort of adventure.  In fact, there's no "maybe" about it; I definitely want to do this!

Yes, indeedy. The only question is, which tack do I take? Old kids or young kids? And do I write my own adventure or rewrite one of these two?  And if I do decide to make my own, should I use one of the old cartoon episodes as inspiration? There are a few good ones to draw from. More than a few. I kind of want to (re-)do Valley of the Unicorns, because Kelek is so dastardly as an evil wizard. I dig it. You tell me.

Okay, that's enough for a Friday afternoon. And here's your "moment of zen:"

A LOT of crushed beer cans...