Class Features or "Reskining"

There was an interesting discussion a the OD&D forums about swashbucklers:

http://odd74.proboards.com/thread/9341/swashbuckler

I found this again while looking up inspiration for a "Musketeer" style class I want to include in my games. I love the Three Musketeers (I have the book, and have seen nearly every adaptation I can find), and would love to include some sort of swashbuckling, suave, snappy swordsman in my games. In fact that's how I play nearly ever Bard when I get the chance.

There are some great ideas in the thread, and there's plenty come up with. In fact the 1st Edition AD&D Barbarian, could pull it off rather nicely, with his +2 defense bonus for every point of dexterity over 14 (this is my preferred Barbarian class, not the Berserker nonsense of later games [though a Berserker class, if it was called that, would be great]). However, there are also some really great counter points to this. Mostly along the lines of A) not wearing armor in the middle ages is ridiculous, and B) why should someone not wearing armor get an ARMOR class bonus?

While the first point is a little more about flavor, the second is a great point. While you're not necessarily penalizing characters who wear armor, what is the point? If they're both getting high armor class, are they really different? Two different ways of coming to the same effect, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

A lovely alternative is pointed out, and that is playing on the strength of not wearing armor. Why give him an armor class bonus, when lower Armor Class could be his drawback, and something more appropriate could be his benefit. I like that a lot.

Now before I to far in that direction, something 3rd Edition D&D did that was kind of cool, was offer a level based Armor Class bonus for everyone, based on class (Unearthed Arcana). This was presented as an alternative to armor. I have no problem with campaigns that don't have the usual medieval, armor clad knight aesthetic.

For usual D&D though, or for game rules in general really, do you want to have so many ways of achieving the same result, or do you want truly unique characters, both mechanically and aesthetically?

With Arcane Adventures, I still want it to be firmly grounded in D&D, so I don't mind giving the Barbarian his increased dexterity bonus, because that's what the D&D (er, AD&D), Barbarian is. For Wizards & Warriors though I really want to rethink the usual class abilities.

On one hand, having multiple avenues of approach to the same problem isn't a bad thing. After all, it's how the game has always worked in some regards: Fighters smash open doors, thieves pick locks, etc. On the other hand, there should be meaningful choices. Giving up the ability to wear Armor should mean you don't get a high Armor Class, but it should also mean you get something cool that you wouldn't be able to do wearing armor (like being stealthy).

Of course there is no cut and dry answer, and maybe a Musketeer will get some bonus to Armor Class, but maybe at most a +4 or +5. After all they are still good and fighting, and can defend themselves well enough, but not as well as knight clad in full plate mail. Alternatively some class may be able to achieve a high defense bonus, but it might take them 5, 10, or even 20 levels to achieve that, getting only a +1 per level (like the Monk class).


This is definitely something I won't mind giving careful thought and consideration.

Wizards & Warriors!

I'm personally familiar with the name from a cool TV show from the 80's I recently discovered watched. It is also the title of two video games. However from what I know, none of them are around anymore, or became very popular, so hopefully no one will mind me using the name for my own game.

I just (yesterday I think) blogged about how awesome Microlite20 is. In fact the reason I found Microlite20 is I've been trying to come up with a rules light d20 game myself. I took most of the posts down sadly, but I had talked before about make a rules light Pathfinder derivative. Sadly Swords & Wizardry is right: it's harder to strip away rules, than it is to add them on. That's when I decided to take another look at Microlite20.

It was great for what I wanted to do; it has just the essentials of the d20 system to play, with none of the extra crap. It didn't have everything I wanted, but that was easy enough to add back in. I started, originally, with going through the 3.5 SRD and adding in all the classes and races, keeping at most 2 to 3 abilities per class and race. I also added the skill system back in, folding a bunch of skills together (I think there is like 10 to 15 skills still). In fact I still have this project on my computer, and I'll be releasing it as soon as I finish formatting and slapping the OGL in the back of it (to make it legal).

After I finished that, I realized to make it playable I needed to copy and edit the feats (I actually like that part of 3E, it just needs to be simplified). I'm cutting out all of the map/grid focused feats, and any magic feats (spell casters are strong enough). I'll still need to copy out spells. That's when I started to think about an alternative.

I love the LBB's, and how they fit in those lovely digest books. In fact I love all of the half-sized books found in old school gaming (OD&D, Adruin, etc.). The one thing that really keeps D&D books from being small is the spell section. I suppose in 3rd Edition, the Character Creation and Combat Rules do take up a lot of space, but look at old school D&D. Most of the old player books are just spell books.

Now there is nothing wrong with Vancian magic, or spell lists. I love it, and when I'm in the mood for some Gygaxian D&D, it's great. However I recall playing BRP (Basic Role Playing) with my friends when we first got into role playing. I didn't quite like BRP's magic system, so I came up with my own. Most of the spells focused around elemental attacks (Wind Strike, Firestorm, etc.), and there weren't a lot of them. Players had to use them creatively to come up with solutions to their problems.

I remember the party got ambushed one time, and the enemy had locked the gate, and set fire to the town. The parties wizards used Wind Strike to break down the door. I know that's not terribly creative, but it's just a small example. Remember this time of imagination and creativity, and wanting a simpler spell system anyway, I set about devising my "Spell Dice" system I just blogged about.

This got me thinking about Non-Gygaxian D&D. In better words: using the D&D rules to play other than D&D styled fantasy games. I love Dungeons & Dragons, and I really enjoy "Gygaxian-Fantasy", and if I want to play that I have tons of games that fill that niche (AD&D, OD&D, Adventures Dark & Deep, Swords & Wizardry, etc.). I started to question what my kind of fantasy would like? What had it looked like before I was introduced to D&D?

With my new spell system devised, and armed with Microlite20's small, but powerful rule set, I set to making a game from scratch (more or less). I didn't care what D&D's "Fighter" or "Magic-User" looked like, what would mine look like? I now have "Wizards & Warriors". I have a full game outlined already (using Microlite20, that's not hard at all).

It's fully d20 compatible, which was one of my small goals. I want to focus on what's fun, and after playing and reading through so many RPGs, D&D is just plain fun. People like rolling d20's, getting bonuses, killing weird monsters, and getting gold. Don't mess with what works. With Wizards & Warriors I'll still get to use all of those fantastic monsters found in all of my various bestiaries.

D&D also handles "special" combat maneuvers/modifiers/classes better than most other games. Which is kind of what my new game is about. You have a few spell casting classes, that get to play with that nifty spell dice system. Other than that it's mostly kits for the fighter. You trade a few restrictions to get some unique combat ability or characteristic. I've included an overly simplified Thief/Rogue to fill that niche, but other than that it's just a variety of fighters (Barbarian, Cavalier, Martial Artist, etc.).

Really that's whats fun about D&D, at least the D&D I like. It's killing stuff and getting treasure (I think I might have mentioned that once or twice...). "Role-playing" in old-school games come from problem-solving, player choices, and interacting with the "world", not the rules. I'll probably tack on some codified rules for crafting later (because I love crafting), but other than a some basic d6 checks for activities, everything else should be handled via describing your character's actions, and Referee adjudication.

So far Wizards & Warriors is much like the millions of variant players handbooks that came out in the 2000's (Iron Heroes, Swashbuckling Adventures, Mutants & Masterminds, Call of Cthulhu d20, etc.), mostly character creation rules, with a few rules for handling common activities in the campaign.

Like I said, I have a full outline already, though I'm still deciding on a few class features. Each class as of now as 2 to 3 special abilities/features. A few of them improve over time, or get more use out of those features as they progress. If this ends up being a fun project, I plan on making a sort of "Advanced Companion" to add more features to some of the classes, and expand upon the ideas of the basic game. Right now it really feels like house ruled OD&D (though higher numbers), and I'm really happy with that.

I'm going to try and play it soon with some friends who might like it, and if all goes well, I'll format it, slap on the OGL, and share it with everyone.

"Spell Dice" Magic System

I've had this idea for a long time, before I played D&D, of a simple fantasy game where wizards gained dice to cast spells with. I finally decided to work it out and tinker with it, and am pretty happy with the results. This would not replace D&D's actual spell system, as it serves a much different purpose, but it is fun, and leaves a lot of room for creativity.

Generally this system is focused around three types of spell caster: Wizard (Offensive), Cleric (Defensive), and Illusionist (Trickery). Characters would gain a number of spell dice (d6) equal to their level. This system leaves room for Paladins and Bards. Paladins would get touch based healing spells (described below), and Bards would gain 1/2 their level in spell dice, and be able to cast both Cleric and Illusionist spells. At least that's how I'm planning on using it.

Spell Types

Missile: This type of spell conjures a projectile of some sort to be hurled at a target. The missile hits automatically, and no saving throw is allowed. Spell casters can throw as many missiles, as they have spell dice available. The missiles can be thrown at different targets, or all at one target. Missiles can be thrown at a range of 100 +10 feet per level of the caster.

Touch: These types of spells function exactly as missiles, except the caster must be able to touch their target. No roll is needed, damage occurs automatically, and no saving throw is allowed. The damage dealt can be up to the amount of spell dice left, but it is limited to one target.

Area of Effect: These kinds of spells project the effects of a spell across a broad area. All creatures within the area of effect are entitled to a saving throw to negate damage. Damage dealt to each creature within the area is equal to the spell dice used for the spell. Therefore a 10th level caster, could use 10 spell dice on an area of effect spell, and possibly inflict 10d6 damage to every creature within the sphere, that fails their saving throw. It is up to the player and referee to determine whether 10d6 would be rolled for each creature, or if 10d6 would be rolled once, and then applied the same to all creatures affected. There are several shapes that can manifest as an area of effect spell, they are detailed below.

Sphere: Spells of this type can be considered the magical equivalent of artillery. While they have a much farther range than that of a missile spell, they are less accurate, but possibly more damaging. The sphere can be launched up to 400 + 40ft per caster level. The diameter of the sphere is equal to the caster’s level x 5 feet.

Cone: Much like the sphere type of spells, cone spells have an area of effect. The cone projects out in a quarter circle, 5 foot in length for every level of the caster. Otherwise all spell effects are the same as a sphere spell.

Line: This type of spell functions exactly as a cone spell, except the range is 10 feet per caster level, and it projects in a straight line outward, with an effective width of 5 feet.

Chain: This sort of spell allows the effects to “chain-link” from target to target, in no particular shape. The spell caster chooses what path the spell takes, and what targets it affects. This spell functions just as any other area of effect spell, except when one target passes their saving throw, the chain stops and no more targets are affected.

Spell Material

The spell caster must choose how their spell manifests, whether it is a fireball, or conjured dagger. Players should be imaginative, and creative in determine their spell composition. They should also take care to consider the effects of the spell on the intended target, as well as the environment around them. For example a certain creature may be vulnerable to fire, or immune to damage from the cold. Furthermore spells operating via sound or sonic boom could shatter crystals or rocks. Some common examples of spell substances are provided below.

Elemental: All of the various elements can be used to form spells: earth, air, fire, water, electricity, etc. Common forms include fireballs, meteor showers, lighting blasts, or rays of frost.

Conjured Material: Any sort of non-natural item can be conjured, as long as it is appropriate to the spell dice being spent. For example a 1d6 magical missile could be a sort of conjured arrow, or a 1d6 touch attack might be a conjured short sword. A spell caster could use a conjured crowd of dancing swords to fight in a sphere around him, functioning as an area of effect.

Clerical Spells

Clerics cast spells of a divine nature, serving to revitalize, protect, and strengthen those around him. Cleric spells can function as either a sphere, centered on the cleric, or touch spells. The only difference is cleric spells do not get a saving throw, since they are beneficial to the targets of the spell. There are three main types of cleric spells; healing, protection, and augmenting spells.

Healing spells heal damage according to the spell dice used in the spell. Protection spells add a bonus to either armor class, saving throws, or damage reduction. Augmenting spells can add a bonus to either attack rolls, or damage dealt. Protection and augmentation spells last for the entirety of the round they are cast, and apply to all rolls made in that round. The cleric rolls once for all parties affected.

Illusionist Spells

Illusionists have two main types of spells at their disposal: confusion and enchantment. Confusion spells function as cone, sphere, or missile spells. They function in the opposite fashion of the cleric’s augmenting spells, incurring a penalty to attack rolls for their targets, and allowing saving throws for area of effect spells.

Enchantment spells serve to fascinate and distract creatures. The spell dice spent determine the amount of hit dice in creatures that are affected by an enchantment spell (1 spell dice equals a 1 hit dice creature affected). Illusionists can focus their enchantment on a specific target, or simply cast the spell and see who it affects. In the latter case lower hit dice creatures are affected first. In both cases the creature is entitled to a saving throw, and if it fails, the creature is effectively paralyzed. The spell lasts for a number of rounds equal to the Illusionist’s level, the creature being entitled to a saving throw each round.

Cantrips

Casters can spend one spell die to cast 5 cantrips. The cantrips can be cast as the caster wishes, he must simply keep track of the fact he used up a spell die, and how many cantrips he has left from that use. Cantrips are minor spell effects, amounting to no more than a +1 or -1 in game terms, and lasting for one minute. Examples of cantrips would be a small gust of wind, a phantom ghost sound, or creating magical torch light.

I'll be making a post discussing what motivated me to get this done, and what I've been up to lately.

Warband Rules

D&D started as a wargame (though not in the way most people like to claim). I know there is chainmail, and still need to really give it a good read, though it uses a different combat system than the D&D we're used to. I also know there have been several D&D mass combat rules published, of which I plan on checking out (BECMI & RC has some, Spells & Swords, ACKS, etc...). In fact I'm reading through ACKS right now because someone else was suggested it for the same reason I'm in the mood for wargaming.

I've been playing Mount & Blade: with Fire & Sword. Of course I love wargaming in general, but Mount & Blade always gets me in the mood for domain building D&D. Adventurer Conqueror King System (or ACKS for short) was designed from the ground up for this sort of play. D&D was actually meant for this sort of play, and it is very evident if you read the Little Brown Books. However, as time went on people enjoyed the adventuring, dungeon crawling, and role playing aspects more, so the theme of the game shifted. In any case, I've heard ACKS handles domain style D&D very well.

Regardless of how great ACKS is, I've been in the mood to tinker lately, and this idea just popped in my head for a mass combat system. A while a go I came up with a mass combat table for Swords & Wizardry (which has a simple mass combat system). I used a web site that gave dice statistics for rolling dice pools, and determine how many dice in the pool beat a target number. I don't recall the specific site I used, but I just dug this up, and it seems to do the trick: Scott's Dice Pool. The table would tell you how many of your troops hit, by comparing the dice to the target armor class, based on the appropriate probabilities.

Now the table I worked up was pretty nice, and it used the Ascending Armor Class system. Unfortunately I had only made the table up to AC 20, and had oddly made it down to AC 0 (which doesn't happen with Ascending Armor Class). I figured then, you could just calculate the Target Number (by subtracting the unit's Attack Bonus from the target's Armor Class) and compare your roll to that. This got me thinking of a simpler way of emulating the table; though it's not a perfect translation. As with most old school D&D, abstraction for the sake of simplicity and fun is never a bad thing.

This system requires Ascending Armor Class. Basically you would use the following formula for all attacks:

d20 + modifiers + troop advantage + 1 - AC = troops that hit

Troop advantage is how much the attack outnumbers the defender. The reason it's not just the difference, is it's easier to hit when outnumbering, but it's not impossible to hit when you are outnumbered. In other words, it keeps troops that are outnumbered from getting shafted.

This all makes sense because the number of troops that hit is how much you multiply damage by. For simplicity's sake, and so you don't end up rolling pools of dice, you would simply multiply the damage die (i.e. 10 x 1d8, instead of 10d8). Therefore outnumbered troops still have a chance of hitting, but don't do as much damage.

Another way of looking at it is: attack as you normally would, adding the number of troops outnumbering the target as a modifier. However much you beat the AC is how much you multiply the damage dice by.

After you figure out how many troops hit, and how much damage is dealt, subtract that from the total hit points of the unit. Figure out the average hit point value of the unit and divide the remaining hit points by that average (round up) to determine how many troops are left.

An example of the combat system would thus:

A group of 10 2nd level knights (1d8 long sword)  attacks a group of 7 0-level men-at-arms (AC 12 leather, 5 hit points each, 35 total). The knight's roll a 15 (d20) + 2 (attack bonus) + 3 (troop advantage), totaling 20. The difference is 8 (20 - 12 = 8). The knights then roll 3 on their d8, dealing 24 points of damage, leaving 3 troops [(35-24)/5 = 2.2 rounded up).

I did a stress of this with a mock combat. Both sides had AC18, and +0 attack bonus. This was, of course, meant to see how tedious it could be in extreme circumstances. It ended up taking 23 rounds of combat, 17 of which where nothing occurred. Now this seems pretty bad, but it only took 5 minutes all in all. Once damage does occur though, combat ends up getting pretty fatal, rather fast. I think this is a pretty realistic depiction to be honest. A bunch of inexperienced guys in field plate could go at it for about half an hour (assuming OD&D rounds) doing practically nothing to each other, then finally slaying each other rather quickly. If you assume B/X or 3E D&D it comes out to roughly 5 minutes, even more believable.

Something interesting to note, and pretty funny, is that damage occurred on round 1, almost like an immediate clash of arms, then round 6, 7, 19, 21, and 23; infrequently, then frequently. Keep in mind this was all just dice rolling, and no tactics or variation. Also it's highly unlikely you'd have two groups with AC18, but no attack bonus, or mounts even.

Obviously there is room for more playtesting and improvement, but for right now it's a simple and effective system, that  I really like.

Below is the log from notepad I used to keep track:

"Two groups of Knights, Field Plate with Long Swords

Assume HP 5 for each Knight, 10 troops each. Red vs. Blue.

Red has initiative every turn

Round 1; Blue takes 8 points of damage; Blue is at 42 hit points, 9 troops left

Round 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22; nothing

Round 6; Blue takes 4 points of damage; Blue is at 38 hit points, 8 troops left

Round 7; Red takes 3 points of damage; Red is at 47 hit points, 10 troops left

Round 19; Blue takes 24(8 x 3) points of damage; Blue is at 14 hit points, 3 troops left

Round 21; Blue takes 8(8 x 1) points of damage; Blue is at 6 hit points, 2 troops left

Round 23; Blue takes 56(7 x 8) points of damage; Blue is defeated"

Dry Language and Creativity

Haven't posted in a while, partly because I've been disheartened, and partly because I've felt a little stupid lately. I've had a lot of time to actually play D&D lately, and a few other table top games. Needless to say some of my paradigms have been shifted, and others reinforced. One area that has been really reinforced is that we don't need another retroclone. I've already started to clean up a bit, but I'm going to continue, so don't be surprised if a lot of older posts get deleted. I know no-one really reads my blog, but just in case this is here as a why and warning.

I know it might seem hypocritical, or even cowardly to go-back on what I used to say or think, but I can admit I used to be wrong, misinformed, or just not informed enough. Therefore any post expressing harsh opinions, or most anything related to me writing my own game is probably going to be deleted. It's not necessary, it doesn't add anything of value to the discussion, and is just taking up space on the web. Furthermore, after getting into some really deep talks with a good friend of mine, I've mellowed out on my opinions quite a bit. I still have my opinions, but I have no desire to shove them down anyone's throat.

Anyway, one thing that's definitely been reinforced is my love for old school D&D, and OD&D in particular. I've played a lot of D&D NEXT and 3E/Pathfinder lately. I hate it. I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion here, but I just don't have much fun playing those games. Having fun definitely comes down to the group and the referee, and I've had fun with my friends, but that's definitely despite the game. There is just too much stuff in newer D&D games. From racial and class abilities, to rules and combat, it's just too much.

Now I'm currently working on a fun little project I might post soon, and I was reading through my LBB's and realized something I love about them: the dry language. I know it seems funny, because everyone in the OSR loves to espouse how much flavor and creativity is found in old school D&D. What I mean is the dry language of the rules. OD&D has flavor where it needs it: spells, monsters, dungeon examples, but doesn't attempt to present the rules lavishly. There's practically no description of what a dwarf is, only noting the abilities that make it special to play. This is great because it lets the Referee and players decide what a dwarf is to them. Have they read Tolkien? Do they prefer German mythology?

Furthermore OD&D doesn't talk down to the player. There is no need to state that "strength is a combination of muscle and power", because it is assumed that if you're going to be playing a game about creativity and imagination, you know what strength is. "Strength" is the flavor, the mechanics are presented in a short, succinct manner, noting only what affects the game.

What I'm currently working on is a sort of "hack" of Microlite20 an excellent rules light role-playing game based around the d20 system. It's obviously intended for experienced gamers, just as OD&D was intended for experienced war gamers. Of course it's language is even shorter and to the point than OD&D, taking advantage of common gaming formulas and abbreviations.

Microlite20 is great because it provides everything you need to play D&D, so you're free to add in the things that are important to you. I find myself naturally filling in my own descriptions and wording. With all of the previous projects I've done, whether using the SRD for inspiration, or trying to emulate an older game, I've found myself caught up in descriptions and verbage.

This all brings me to a point, I think ChicagoWiz made a long time ago. Maybe not so much that we need brand new, awe inspiring, ground breaking material, but that we don't need to retread. More so than retread the rules, we don't need to retread "What is a Role Playing Game?". I love e-zines, blog posts, and forums because they don't take time to tell me how to roll dice. They present new and interesting material, with the bits I actually need for play.

Out of all of the books I've bought, downloaded, and perused, so much if it is just the same stuff. Whether it's "How To Roll Dice" or more slightly different stats for Orcs. I know it seems hypocritical, and like I'm just complaining, but it's true. That's partially why I'm going to go back and "erase" my part of the crime, an attempt at amending my contribution to the drivel. More than complain though, this blog is going to become a place where I praise the unique ideas I find, and maybe share some of the quips I can come up with.

I know Microlite20 is kind of old news, but if you haven't checked it out, please do. Check out the site below for some awesome variations, and interesting rules interpretations.

http://www.retroroleplaying.com/content/microlite20-rpg-collection

Misreading the Rules and the Thief

Bear with me, as much of this is off the top of my head, though fairly recently.

In the OSR there is both the opinion that: A) modern rule sets encourage "roll-playing" and emphasize character ability, and B) the Thief is the start of that trend. While the second opinion is not quite so common, it is still espoused by prominent OSR figures, such as Grognardia and Philotomy. Whether or not that opinion is correct (it is an opinion), there is precedence for the argument.

However I think a lot of guys are misreading, or not reading all of it, or forgetting what they're reading. In OD&D the Underworld & Wilderness Adventures booklet (proto-DMG) clearly has rules for finding and setting off traps, surprise (stealth), outrunning monsters (athletics), finding secret doors (perception), etc... All of these rules have a die roll that can be made, usually a range of pips on a six-sided die. Furthermore in Men & Magic there is reference to some abilities modifying those rules, though specifics are never given.

I think the big difference between OD&D, and later games however, was how those rules are presented. Rules for character abilities resolving problems are found in the Referee's booklet, instead of the player's booklet. Therefore it is left up to the Referee to determine what happens in those situations, instead of players demanding what gets to happen. A sort of sub-point in this, is that in OD&D those situations are presented as dangers that can be sprung on characters, or helpful tricks. In later editions much more importance is placed on giving the players control, and making the world safer for them. This means more rolls: does the trap spring? did the character pass a saving throw? did the character pass a skill check? etc.

Another item I think a lot of OSR guys don't think about is how the Thief could actually function (I'm not going to say should, because I don't know how it was intended). They argue that "before the Thief came along, everyone could do those things!". I'm not quite so sure about AD&D, but I do know that Greyhawk does not invalidate the LBB's. Therefore all of those rolls are still there for other classes to make. What makes the Thief unique, is that those abilities progress and improve over time. In fact if we look at some of the Thief's abilities, they start off relatively close to a percent equivalent to the d6 rolls, if not a little lower. A similar thing happens with the Ranger in 1E, having a 50% chance of surprise, instead of the usual 2 out of 6.

Furthermore OSR types like to bemoan how "roll-playing" prevents "role-playing", but if that were the case, the LBB's are just as guilty; as I already pointed out the rules are there. If you can "role-play" and problem solve in character with LBB OD&D, then why not with a thief class? Let the player make the roll; if they fail it or don't have the skill, let them role-play it out. Now I most certainly won't argue that later editions put a higher emphasis on "roll-playing", as I've experienced that first hand. 3E players, and those I've been playing with in D&D Next, heavily rely on their rolled skill checks.

How do I feel about the Thief? Well I do think it started a bad trend, but not that of skill rolls. I think it started class bloat, in both the number of classes to later be found, and the amount of abilities each class has. It was introduced simultaneously with the Paladin. While the Paladin had a few restrictions, and benefits, it remained very similar to the Fighter, even in experience points needed. The Thief however, was an entirely new class, not a sub-class; complete with new attack tables, restrictions, and experience point progressions. Furthermore the Thief has a laundry list of abilities: Back Stab, Hide in Shadows, Move Silently, Hear Noise, Remove Traps, Open Locks, etc...

In every later edition of D&D we see more independent and different classes, with ever expanding class abilities. In 3rd Edition, they entirely did away with any sort of class hierarchy, and made every class independent and separate. Furthermore, to make them interesting enough to play, and balanced against each other, large lists of abilities and options were provided.

I'm thinking of getting rid of the Thief in my games, and making most of the class feel more like kits/backgrounds/specialties (thought not completely like 2E did). I've already discussed this before, each class having only a couple unique abilities they are good at, and that makes them interesting to play. With this method, I had originally intended four archetypes, just like 2E, mostly because the Thief/Rogue has become such a tradition of D&D.

However, as you could guess, I'm starting to question the necessity of the Thief. After all, couldn't the Thief just be a light-Fighter, that's good at dealing with hazards? The Rogue, a sneaky Fighter that deals in Subterfuge? I don't anyone would argue that an Assassin wouldn't be a perfect type of Fighter subclass.

I'm thinking this would greatly simplify my house rules. In white box OD&D, you have three clear archetypes: Martial, Arcane, Divine. Only three hit dice types (d4, d6, d8), with no need to later strengthen certain classes against each other. Three attack progressions, and three saving throw progressions. Three clear combat roles; straight damage dealing combat, spell sword that strengthens and heals, and finally the dedicated spell caster. The Thief or Rogue would simply deal damage in a different way. In fact there are things the Thief and Fighter can both do, simply in different ways; like bashing open doors vs unlocking them.

Furthermore this would encourage me to expand upon the original system of general adventuring skills. How to you handle stealth, climbing, traps, etc... I'd emphasize "role-playing" and problem solving, while providing fall backs like the X out of d6 roll, or general percentage chances. I wouldn't necessarily want to develop a full skill system like 3E, or a proficiency system like 2E; but the possibility of improving those general skills over time wouldn't be precluded. If I did all of that, I could simplify a lot of the "skill monkey" classes like the Rogue, Ranger, Thief, Barbarian etc... Giving those classes small, but unique, ability lists.

For example, I'm thinking my Thief would have: Stealth (which only he could use in combat), Security (finding/removing traps, etc.), and some sort of Sneak Attack. My Ranger would have animal handling skills, and dual-wielding, but tracking and survival skills would probably be cut. My Barbarian would be focused on the Constitution and Dexterity bonuses the 1E Barbarian had, but cutting most of his tertiary skills, or the abilities that the 3E Barbarian latched onto.

Well this was much longer than I intended, so I'm off for the evening, er uh morning I suppose.

Alternate Class Skill System

I noticed a lot of people have a problem with Castles & Crusades SIEGE engine. I've also noticed from playing with my players that the original d% system for Thief skills is extremely easy to use. Furthermore players love it, because they know precisely what chance they have of succeeding. There's also no need for adding modifiers on the go, and it definitely cut down on powergaming. Even my more 3E oriented players loved it.

So as an alternative to more complex systems, simply make most class related abilities a percent roll. I'll leave the details up to you, but for myself I've even eliminated the table for Thief skills. Instead all skills for any class start at 35% (25% if you want a tougher game), and increase by 5% every level till they reach 90%, at which point they increase 1% per level.

While this does sacrifice some granularity, it is extremely simple and quick. You don't even need a table. You can have ability scores modify if you like, but with my 35% system I already took that in to account. If you look at the Thief skills in AD&D, if you add in the dexterity and racial adjustments, you get around 25-35% for the average of skills.

Of course there are non-skill class abilities as well, but those are usually described within themselves; either being at-will, daily, spell-like, etc... This would simply be for skill abilities like "hide in shadows", "pick-pockets", etc. This can also be used with Adventures Dark & Deep for the skills of classes like Bard, Jester, Acrobat, and Mountebank.

I've also finished mocking up a nice house rules document for myself. It's just Swords & Wizardry Whitebox, with certain clarifications and additions from S&W Core, and Basic Fantasy. It's all technically open game content, so when I've formatted it to my liking, and mocked up a cover, I'll be sure to share. Obviously I'll be releasing a supplement with the above material.

If I do create a supplement look forward to the following classes: Bard, Acrobat, Minstrel, Jester, Mountebank, Barbarian, Cavalier, Paladin, Ranger, Witch-Hunter, Scout, Martial Artist, Assassin, Mystic, Druid, Illusionist, Savant, Alchemist, and Psychic. I know it sounds like a lot, but each class is basically a collection of 5 to 10 abilities, usually very simple and short in description. I might post soon about each class to give an idea what my partner and I have come up with.

Right now I'm looking to mock up a set of reference sheets that quickly lay out what each class can do, nothing publishable, but something to play with. I already have hand written notes on what each class, but I don't have an explanation for any of the abilities yet. Of course this is all subject to demand, of which there is very little.