Alternate Rule: Kill the Cleric, Keep the Thief, t

[drsamsara]

One of the big debates I see among grognards and fellow-travelers is whether or not to axe the Thief. The argument is made both on purist grounds (it wasn’t in the original 3 books) and on practical grounds (it usurps and mechanizes actions, such as sneaking and finding traps, that should be performed by anybody and role-played out). I’ve tended to agree with the anti-party, mostly because I never liked Thieves. I don’t believe that I have ever played a Thief in three decades of gaming. Maybe that’s just because the guys I knew who played Thieves were always stealing from other party member and generally being annoying. Maybe not.

But I was thinking again and it more and more seems to me that Thieves thematically fit the game. What doesn’t fit are Clerics. Sure, they have the pedigree (in the original game), but what the heck are they? There is no source for them from the literally tradition D&D drew from, nor from the medieval history. Yes, there is frequent mention of Archbishop Turpin (the Battling’ Bishop!), but he wasn’t a D&D Cleric. There isn’t any real source for the spell-casting, mace-wielding, cleric. It’s sui generis. That’s not a bad thing as such, lots of cool D&D things are creations of the game itself (Rod of Lordly Might!), but it seems to exist solely to give a weapon against undead (take that Sir Fang!) and be a source of healing.

I’d argue that the role is so nebulous that even Gary and folks didn’t get it, because the Paladin came about very quickly and that class is much more aligned with Archbishop Turpin and the Knights Templar and whatnot.

So here’s the idea: kill the Cleric, keep the Thief. That gives you three clearly defined roles: the Warrior, the Sneak, and the Wizard. Hey, that’s what True20 did. I just realized that. Combine the MU and Cleric spell lists. Dump Turn Undead as a class thing; it never seems to work well in practice for me. Either fight the damn Vampire or get out the dungeon.

[url=One of the big debates I see among grognards and fellow-travelers is whether or not to axe the Thief. The argument is made both on purist grounds (it wasn’t in the original 3 books) and on practical grounds (it usurps and mechanizes actions, such as sneaking and finding traps, that should be performed by anybody and role-played out). I’ve tended to agree with the anti-party, mostly because I never liked Thieves. I don’t believe that I have ever played a Thief in three decades of gaming. Maybe that’s just because the guys I knew who played Thieves were always stealing from other party member and generally being annoying. Maybe not.

But I was thinking again and it more and more seems to me that Thieves thematically fit the game. What doesn’t fit are Clerics. Sure, they have the pedigree (in the original game), but what the heck are they? There is no source for them from the literally tradition D&D drew from, nor from the medieval history. Yes, there is frequent mention of Archbishop Turpin (the Battling’ Bishop!), but he wasn’t a D&D Cleric. There isn’t any real source for the spell-casting, mace-wielding, cleric. It’s sui generis. That’s not a bad thing as such, lots of cool D&D things are creations of the game itself (Rod of Lordly Might!), but it seems to exist solely to give a weapon against undead (take that Sir Fang!) and be a source of healing.

I’d argue that the role is so nebulous that even Gary and folks didn’t get it, because the Paladin came about very quickly and that class is much more aligned with Archbishop Turpin and the Knights Templar and whatnot.

So here’s the idea: kill the Cleric, keep the Thief. That gives you three clearly defined roles: the Warrior, the Sneak, and the Wizard. Hey, that’s what True20 did. I just realized that. Combine the MU and Cleric spell lists. Dump Turn Undead as a class thing; it never seems to work well in practice for me. Either fight the damn Vampire or get out the dungeon.

[url=One of the big debates I see among grognards and fellow-travelers is whether or not to axe the Thief. The argument is made both on purist grounds (it wasn’t in the original 3 books) and on practical grounds (it usurps and mechanizes actions, such as sneaking and finding traps, that should be performed by anybody and role-played out). I’ve tended to agree with the anti-party, mostly because I never liked Thieves. I don’t believe that I have ever played a Thief in three decades of gaming. Maybe that’s just because the guys I knew who played Thieves were always stealing from other party member and generally being annoying. Maybe not.

But I was thinking again and it more and more seems to me that Thieves thematically fit the game. What doesn’t fit are Clerics. Sure, they have the pedigree (in the original game), but what the heck are they? There is no source for them from the literally tradition D&D drew from, nor from the medieval history. Yes, there is frequent mention of Archbishop Turpin (the Battling’ Bishop!), but he wasn’t a D&D Cleric. There isn’t any real source for the spell-casting, mace-wielding, cleric. It’s sui generis. That’s not a bad thing as such, lots of cool D&D things are creations of the game itself (Rod of Lordly Might!), but it seems to exist solely to give a weapon against undead (take that Sir Fang!) and be a source of healing.

I’d argue that the role is so nebulous that even Gary and folks didn’t get it, because the Paladin came about very quickly and that class is much more aligned with Archbishop Turpin and the Knights Templar and whatnot.

So here’s the idea: kill the Cleric, keep the Thief. That gives you three clearly defined roles: the Warrior, the Sneak, and the Wizard. Hey, that’s what True20 did. I just realized that. Combine the MU and Cleric spell lists. Dump Turn Undead as a class thing; it never seems to work well in practice for me. Either fight the damn Vampire or get out the dungeon.
One of the big debates I see among grognards and fellow-travelers is whether or not to axe the Thief. The argument is made both on purist grounds (it wasn’t in the original 3 books) and on practical grounds (it usurps and mechanizes actions, such as sneaking and finding traps, that should be performed by anybody and role-played out). I’ve tended to agree with the anti-party, mostly because I never liked Thieves. I don’t believe that I have ever played a Thief in three decades of gaming. Maybe that’s just because the guys I knew who played Thieves were always stealing from other party member and generally being annoying. Maybe not.

But I was thinking again and it more and more seems to me that Thieves thematically fit the game. What doesn’t fit are Clerics. Sure, they have the pedigree (in the original game), but what the heck are they? There is no source for them from the literally tradition D&D drew from, nor from the medieval history. Yes, there is frequent mention of Archbishop Turpin (the Battling’ Bishop!), but he wasn’t a D&D Cleric. There isn’t any real source for the spell-casting, mace-wielding, cleric. It’s sui generis. That’s not a bad thing as such, lots of cool D&D things are creations of the game itself (Rod of Lordly Might!), but it seems to exist solely to give a weapon against undead (take that Sir Fang!) and be a source of healing.

I’d argue that the role is so nebulous that even Gary and folks didn’t get it, because the Paladin came about very quickly and that class is much more aligned with Archbishop Turpin and the Knights Templar and whatnot.

So here’s the idea: kill the Cleric, keep the Thief. That gives you three clearly defined roles: the Warrior, the Sneak, and the Wizard. Hey, that’s what True20 did. I just realized that. Combine the MU and Cleric spell lists. Dump Turn Undead as a class thing; it never seems to work well in practice for me. Either fight the damn Vampire or get out the dungeon.

Originally posted at rpg.net. But now, I want to take that idea into S&S-specific thoughts. I’m on record somewhere as being luke-warm about the idea of Elite Paths. But I must admit that I do have a soft-spot for the way this was handled in BECM D&D—a 9th Level Fighter can choose to become a Paladin if he wants; ditto the Cleric becoming a Druid.

So that got me thinking: what if you went with the three core classes (Warrior, Thief, and Wizard) and then opened up some of the other classes as Elite Paths available at higher level. Make the Paladin one for Warriors. A Paladin gets a limited spell list which, coincidentally, is the old Priest spell list. Make the Assassin one for Thieves. Make the Illusionist one for Wizards (although I’ve never really gotten the Illusionist, I always liked them).

Since I find that the premise and mechanics of D&D start to break down around 10th level, I run lower level games. Thus I’d allow entrance into the Elite Paths at a lower level. Looking back at the 3 books, one sees that 4th Level Fighting-Men are “Heroes”. That says to me that being 4th level is supposed to be pretty bad-ass. So, I think, I’d make the Elite Path available when a character is ready to advance into 5th level. At that point, you have the choice to go into 5th level of the core class or 5th level of the Elite Path. Should that really be 1st level of the Elite path? Maybe, but it’s too confusing.

A 4th level Warrior who is Lawful could seek out an ecclesiastic order of knights or something and accept initiation and become a 5th level Paladin. I’d definitely put in an XP penalty for these Paths, 10% or so, in order that the benefits are balanced by slower advancement.

I know this isn’t what Jason is planning on doing, but since mucking with the rules is one of the hall-marks of the old-school, I trust that my thoughts aren’t seen as any sort of criticism. I’m just hard to please and like doing things my own way.

Anyway, thoughts?

[Jason Vey]

Of course I take no offense! It's an honor that people like the game enough to play with the conventions.

I actually think the idea of opening up Elite Paths at higher levels (3rd or 4th) is pretty cool, and has precedent in AD&D (Bards and Acrobats, anyone?). Of course, you'll have some grognards out there complaining then that you're just slapping Prestige classes back into the game .

10%, incidentally, is going to be a standard XP penalty for Elite Paths suggested (optionally, don't panic!) in the Monstrous Mayhem sourcebook.

[drsamsara]

Here’s my new thoughts:

Start with the three core classes: Warrior, Wizard, and Thief. As mentioned before, combine the Wizard and Cleric spell lists. No Turning at low levels? Right—keep undead scary as hell to low-level guys. This covers levels 1-3, the Basic levels.

Level 4 is the beginning of the heroic levels (a level 4 Fighting-Man is a Hero). When a PC accumulated enough XP to advance to 4th level, he has the option to continue in his original, core class OR to take an elite path (although I don’t really like the name, which smacks of Prestige Class. But I can’t come up with a better one either). Entering an Elite path requires an additional 15% of XP. So, a Wizard needs 10,000 XP to make Level 4 OR 11,500 to make an Elite Level 4.


Here’s a stab at Elite paths:
Warriors—Paladins, Rangers
Wizards—Druid, Illusionists
Thief—Assassins, Bards


Paladins are essentially as described in Book 1 of S&S, although I’m also playing around with the idea of giving them the Turning ability and of removing the other special powers, replacing them with limited spell-casting from the old Cleric Spell list.

Rangers would get some special abilities re sneaking and tracking, favoured enemy bonus, and some limited spell-casting from the old Druid list.

Druids get shape-changing, pass without trace, and an expanded spell list which adds in the old Druid spells.

Illusionsists detect illusions, casting bonus to illusions, and expanded spell lists which adds the old Illusionist spells.

Assassins are essentially as described in the book.

Bards essentially as in the Monstrous Mayhem supplement.



That’s the thought at the moment. Keeps things simple at low levels, when PC’s are almost disposable. Add complexity and customization at mid-level when the PC’s go from wannabes to heroes and player investment sets in. Each class has three options—continue at core class or take one of the two Elite Paths.

I’m also mulling the idea of adding a fourth option, which would be to allow a PC to dual-class at 4th level, making them 4th level at the original class and 1st level at the second class, with all XP divided equally from then on out as per dual-classed demi-humans. But I’m very unsure of that.

To which Jason said:
Interesting approach, but this pretty much just turns Elite Paths into Prestige Classes, doesn't it? I also find it intriguing that you dislike the cleric, but purely from an academic standpoint; most old-schoolers dislike the thief!

To which I replied:
Fair enough. As I've said, I'm awfully torn on the whole issue. I did like the way the BECM game did Paladins and Druids. So how is that different from Prestige Classes? I am not terribly conversant with 3.141 stuff, so take my analysis with a grain of salt. But I think the essential difference is that taking a Prestige Class was pretty much always a good idea, in terms of character optimization. That's largely the result of standardized XP Tables. So you got some new goodies at no real price.

Whereas this idea of Elite Paths is not. It makes perfect sense to keep on being a regular old Fighter who will advance faster than a Paladin or Ranger. Now I probably need to jigger with the XP requirements (is 15% too low? Too high? I don't know) to make that clear. In soemsense, you are burning XP to get extra powers. And while cool powers are nice, soemtimes just having ahigher level is nicer. Particulary when you play at the lower leves I do and a few hundred XP can make a big difference.

In my mind, I have two ideas: one is my old AD&D fun with Rangers and Illusionists and the other is the stark clarity of White Box classes. I'm thinking that this method sort of reproduces the BECM ideal of starting simple and then adding complexity as you go.

But I don't know.

As regards the Cleric, I hope I expressed my problem with them in that orignal post. It isn't purely academic. Interetsing that right after I resurrected this idea, James at grognardia sounds like he is heading the same direction: renewed appreciation for the Theif and lessening appreciation of the Cleric.

[Jason Vey]

Your point is well taken in regards to BECMI; Paladins, Druids, etc., were indeed some of the earlier examples (along with the original Bard and Thief/Acrobat in AD&D) of prestige classes, so there is precedent for it.

FWIW, in Monstrous Mayhem I do suggest as an optional rule that an XP penalty be imposed on those who choose to advance in an Elite Path.

Regarding the cleric thing: the academic descriptor was meant to apply to my interest. I found, from a purely academic sense, it interesting that you disliked the cleric. I get your reasons; I just find the disparity between that approach and the so-called "Typical" old-school outlook intriguing, is all .

[Jason Vey]

Also, I got a chuckle out of "3.pi"

[drsamsara]

Oh, sorry. I get you now, Jason. Well, I like to think that, rather like S&S, I'm not an old-school zealot.

I used to like that Pi-joke too. Another damn blow from 4th ed is that I get to make it so seldomly now.

[finarvyn]

I've pondered the whole "which classes to keep" issue at length.

1. Many posters make a good point as to how the thief could get dropped, since it wasn't there from the onset. However, my sister (a regular gamer in my group) dearly loves to play thieves so I wouldn't eliminate them in my home game.

2. I've often thought that the cleric as originally concieved is sort of odd and seems patterned more after movies like The Omen (turning undead and such) and less from fantasy literature. The cleric seems more useful when combined with a Deity in the game, but then I find it harder to justify undead turning. Certainly the cleric has use in the party as a healer, but a good supply of healing potions can nullify this advantage. Personally, if the cleric were to go away I wouldn't have much problem with it.

3. My wife (another main gamer of our group) likes to play Magic-users, but her concept is really more like the witch. She's thinking of some blastin' stuff and brewing potions and healing. One possibility could be to substitute the witch for the cleric and give the witch some blend of M-U and cleric spells.

On the other hand, our group likes to have some variety in their options. Since I tend to run games without skills it's possible that two characters of the same class could appear similar, so they like to vary classes so that no two players have the same. In cases such as this it's to my advantage not to eliminate any classes at all, but instead to keep as many as possible. As such, in many of my games I allow the "big four" classes of fighter, magic user, cleric, and thief. I also bring in the options for paladin, ranger, bard, monk, illusionist, witch, and sometimes assassin. These variants to the "big four" are a nice compromise to not having skills in my game. I like the concept of "elite classes" but keep my game somewhat low level so that this option would be more limiting in my campaign.

Anyway, just my two cents.

[Jason Vey]

Well, Monstrous Mayhem will include options for the Ranger, Bard, Druid, and Necromancer, and Eldritch Witchery will include a good half-dozen options for witches and warlocks.

My suspicion is that'll about do it for character elite paths for S&S, as we don't want 3.pi option bloat. The only remaining possibility is if we decide to do psionics down the line and have a psionicist class.

[Jason Vey]

I was thinking of this today, and now I'm coming around to the idea that Clerics aren't really represented in this sense in most fantasy. So what I've come up with is this:

* Bane of the Dead now becomes an ability of the Paladin Elite Path
* Wizard and Priest spell lists are combined--where spells are repeated at different levels, grant them at the lower level. Thus, if one class gets a spell at 3rd level and the other at 4th, the spell appears at 3rd level.
* Players can (a la True20) choose at character creation which Ability--Int, Wis, or Cha--they want to use to cast. Once chosen this Ability cannot be changed.
* Rather than Divine Conviction or Intellect Fortress, the character gains +2 to any two mental saves (Int, Wis, or Cha) provided that at least one is his primary casting ability. This ability is renamed Spiritual Fortitude.
* Use the Wizard XP progression (the Healing Touch ability shouldn't alter the balance enough to require further adjustment).

This leaves three character classes, which just for fun are renamed Spellcaster, Swordsman, and Scoundrel.

No, I'm not making such a major alteration to the face of the game--at least, not now. Perhaps if we ever do a second edition, and be assured this'll probably show up as an option in a future sourcebook, though.

[finarvyn]

Apr 1, 2009 14:58:50 GMT -5 Jason Vey said:

This leaves three character classes, which just for fun are renamed Spellcaster, Swordsman, and Scoundrel.

No, I'm not making such a major alteration to the face of the game--at least, not now. Perhaps if we ever do a second edition, and be assured this'll probably show up as an option in a future sourcebook, though.

Y'know, my thoughts and speculation were aimed at simply discussing ideas and not directly intented as a fix or adjustment for you to make in your rules set. I think that any such change has such huge ramifications that I'd want to get more opinions than just a couple of us before making such a radical switch in the core classes.

It's possible that a person might want to start with this idea and design a game around that, rather than taking an existing (and excellent) game and ripping it apart.

Fun to talk about, though.

[Jason Vey]

Absolutely. As I said, I've no plans to make such a change to the face of the game--it's too major.

However, I do have two campaign settings in development...

[drsamsara]

Apr 1, 2009 14:58:50 GMT -5 Jason Vey said:

I was thinking of this today, and now I'm coming around to the idea that Clerics aren't really represented in this sense in most fantasy. So what I've come up with is this...

I will convince the world to kill the cleric!

It's possible that a person might want to start with this idea and design a game around that, rather than taking an existing (and excellent) game and ripping it apart.

I'm sort of working on a setting which takes James M's psionics rules and makes it the magic system. This setting makes Clerics even more odd and, right now, I'm going with Slayers, Scavengers, and Sorcerers.

[finarvyn]

Maybe I'm having a moment of stupid, but when I follow the link I don't find anything that looks like "James M's psionics rules." :-(

Can you summorize them?

[drsamsara]

Sorry to confuse. That link is to the thing I'm doing using the rules James is working on, which he has posted two parts for at his blog here and here.