Completing the set

[DrewID]

As I got started to begin a campaign using the Original D&D rules (3 LBB plus Greyhawk) I was struck once again with the realization that the set was incomplete. There are six statistics. The Fighting-Man has Strength as its prime requisite; the Magic-User, Intelligence; the Cleric, Wisdom; and once you include Greyhawk, the Thief has Dexterity. Where are the character classes with Constitution and Charisma?

I looked at the additional classes in the other supplements, in The Strategic Review and some of the pre-AD&D issues of The Dragon, and some early White Dwarf issues that I had access to. Greyhawk had the Paladin and Eldritch Wizardry had the Druid, both of whom had high required Charisma, but a) both were sub-classes, and b) in neither case was Charisma the Prime Requisite: the stat around What You Do operates. The White Dwarf had a Barbarian (or maybe Berserker) class, specifically designed to have Constitution as its Prime Requisite, but it didn't thrill me. Most of the other classes were specifically sub-classes of the Big Four.

I considered a couple of options for each, and decided what two classes would work for my own heavily house ruled campaign (this is an attempt in many ways to reach back to those early days of gaming, and we house-ruled the hell out of every game we played back then). I'd like to hear some other people's ideas before I post what I decided on. Any takers? What two classes would you introduce so that the adventuring party can complete the whole set?

DrewID

[DrewID]

No interest, huh? Or at least no replies. Well, I said I'd post the path I took, and if there were people interested but not opinionated (or at least not motivated), well then here it is. And if no one was interested, well, you can ignore two posts as easily as one.

For Constitution, I considered as I wrote before the Barbarian from White Dwarf. And I even wrote up a full version of how I would implement a Barbarian for OD&D. But in the end, Constitution is all about survival. And while a Barbarian class would be survival themed, it would be a survivalist from a specific culture (or culture type. And that didn't sit too well with me. So I took some of those ideas and instead created a Constitution/Survival based Ranger class. This one was NOT written up as a sub-class of fighter, the way the one that first appeared in The Strategic Review was. Nor did I tie them in to JRRT's Rangers with a Lawful alignment restriction. And one of my players made some suggestions along the lines of the core objectives for the U.S. Army Rangers. As I wrote them, their core abilities were Stealth, Alertness, Survival and Ambush. I did keep from the Strategic Review version having two dice for hits at first level, which optimizes their benefit from a high Constitution. And so to the Fighting-Man (dealing and taking damage), the Magic-User (using magic), the Cleric (healing and protection) and the Thief (sneaking), we add the Ranger, with a defined role of outdoor survival.

For Charisma, I strongly considered re-fluffing the Druid from Eldritch Wizardry to be straight Charisma based. After all, it was a fully written up class already, and if Druidic magic wasn't really based on Charisma, well, then neither was Clerical magic (and Anti-Clerical) really "based" on OD&D's ill-defined Wisdom. But I decided that completing the set, the Charisma-based class should fill the party Face role. I considered a generic Face class, with customization to create the kind of Face you wanted; I considered a Con-Man class (which might also have appeared in an old White Dwarf); I thought about a Warlord, with the ability to attract followers early in the adventuring career; but what I went with in the end was the Bard. Their core abilities were Entertain, Legend Lore, Affect Morale, and Charm. But I'm not as happy with this decision, and since no-ne ever rolled one up, I might still change them.

DrewID

[rredmond]

Sounds cool. Though I'm mainly and AD&D (1E) guy, I've played my share of OD&D

I'd love to see the write ups. The Con-Man (Face) class sounds interesting, but I'd be really intrigued to see an OD&D Ranger.

Be well and thank you!
--Ron--

[Grac]

One way to do it would be:
FM - str
Thief - dex
Dwarf - con (fm/thf only)
MU - int
Cleric - wis
Elf - cha (fm/mu only)

[Jay R]

Original Dungeons and Dragons was built around standard fantasy archetypes. Since there is no standard fantasy archetype based primarily on endurance or leadership, I wouldn't seek to change away from the design of the game just for an arbitrary "completeness".

I suppose that you could build a "Warlord" class for Charisma, but it's not much use until the mass battles at around tenth level, and it wouldn't be that different from Fighting Men. Possibly a Witch class could be built on Charisma.

Alternatively, consider this paragraph from Men & Magic, p. 8:

Other Character Types: There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, i.e., a player wishing to be a Balorog would have to begin as let us say, a relatively "young" one, and progress in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign referee.

On that basis, you could invent a monster class based on Constitution (Troll?) or Charisma (Nixie? Vampire?). Of course, you still have to begin as let us say, a relatively "young" one, and progress in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign referee.

[DrewID]

Sounds cool. Though I'm mainly and AD&D (1E) guy, I've played my share of OD&D

I'd love to see the write ups. The Con-Man (Face) class sounds interesting, but I'd be really intrigued to see an OD&D Ranger.

Be well and thank you!
--Ron--

I never wrote up the Con-Man, but here was my attempt at the OD&D Ranger. The level names come from the Strategic Review's Ranger, and i /should/ have changed them, but never did (so they end up sounding too martial at the high levels).

The Rule of Three mentioned several times was my way of standardizing modifiers for high stats. Stat divided by three (rounded down) minus three. So 12+ is +1, 15+ is +2, 18+ is +3.

The table portion of this is somewhat mangled, but if you're interested enough, post it into a word processor and convert Text to Tables, breaking at semi-colons.

Ranger
Prime Requisite: Constitution
For saving throws, they progress as Fighting-Men. For melee fighting, they progress as Thieves, but for missile fire they progress as Fighting-Men. They have four-sided hit dice, but have two at first level and one more for every level thereafter up to level 10.
They may wear up to Chain armor, and employ shields or any one-handed weapon, as well as any missile weapon.
They have four innate abilities: Stealth, Alertness, Survival and Ambush.
Stealth is the ability to move silently and to hide themselves in natural settings. The move silently ability operates at two levels lower if the Ranger is wearing metal armor. The hiding ability operates at two levels lower in the underworld or town settings. It also gives them an increased chance to surprise their opponents.
Alertness is represented by the Ranger's ability to hear noises, and in a decreased chance to be surprised.
Survival is the ability to hunt, track, and live off the land. A party with a Ranger has half the chance of getting lost in the Wilderness. They require half as much food, or they can move at half speed without requiring any additional food supplies. They have a chance (listed below) to follow tracks. They can also set, find, and/or disarm traps and snares. The tracking and trap/snares abilities operate at two levels lower in the underworld or town settings.
The Ambush ability allows a Ranger firing a missile weapon at an unsuspecting opponent to gain a +4 to-hit bonus, and inflict double damage if they hit, with like additional damage for every four levels he has attained. Thus, if a range of the 4th level fired from ambush he would do twice the damage indicated by the die, at 5th through 8th levels he would do thrice the damage, at 9th through 12th levels he would do four times the damage and so on.

Level;Name;Experience;Hit Dice;Move Silently;Hiding;Hear Noise;Follow Tracks;Set/Disarm Traps/Snares
1;Runner;0;2d4;18;18;14;12;16
2;Strider;2,500;3;17;17;13;11;15
3;Scout;5,000;4;15;15;12;10;13
4;Guide;10,000;5;14;14;11;10;12
5;Pathfinder;20,000;6;13;12;10;9;11
6;Warder;35,000;7;11;11;9;8;9
7;Guardian;50,000;8;10;9;8;8;8
8;Ranger-Knight;75,000;9;9;8;7;7;7
9;Ranger-Lord;100,000;10;8;6;6;7;6
10;Ranger-Lord, 10th;200,000;11d6;6;5;5;6;4
11;Ranger-Lord, 11th;300,000;11d6+2;5;3;4;5;3
12;Ranger-Lord, 12th;400,000;11d6+4;4;2;3;5;2
13;Ranger-Lord, 13th;500,000;11d6+6;2;1;2;4;1
14;Ranger-Lord, 14th;600,000;11d6+8;1;1;1;4;1

Move Silently, Hiding, and Set/Disarm Traps/Snares are modified (Rule of Three) for the Ranger's Dexterity.
Hear Noise and Follow Tracks are modified (Rule of Three) for the Ranger's Wisdom.

Bonuses to Dwarves, Elves and Hobbits as Rangers:
Type;Move Silently;Hiding;Hear Noise;Follow Tracks;Set/Disarm Traps/Snares
Dwarf;1;1;;;3
Elf;1;3;;1;
Hobbit;2;2;1;;1

A Caver is a Dwarf Ranger who specializes in operating underground. Any Ranger abilities that operate at a penalty in the Underworld setting have no penalty for the Caver, but they suffer that same penalty in the Wilderness setting.

[Sudokori]

Paladin was a class based on high charisma and high Con to survive. Paladins had a minimum Charisma of 17 and a minimum con of like 12 (it's been a while so I might be off).

FM- strength
Cleric- wisdom
Wizard- intelligence
Thief- dexterity
Monk- all of the above
Paladin- Charisma, Con

That sounds like a complete set without adding in the ranger and illusionist classes. I think if you want to have anything more specific you'll want to look into homebrew classes. A quick google search would work in most cases.

[Jay R]

Paladin was a class based on high charisma and high Con to survive. Paladins had a minimum Charisma of 17 and a minimum con of like 12 (it's been a while so I might be off).

Actually, you are half right. Greyhawk gives no requirement for CON for a paladin, but the minimum CHA of 17 is correct.

FM- strength
Cleric- wisdom
Wizard- intelligence
Thief- dexterity
Monk- all of the above
Paladin- Charisma, Con

The OP specified the original white box plus the first supplement, Greyhawk. Monks weren't introduced until the second supplement, Blackmoor.

[DrewID]

The OP specified the original white box plus the first supplement, Greyhawk. Monks weren't introduced until the second supplement, Blackmoor.

True (and this is the OP speaking), but I also discussed looking at (or at least considering) the Druid from Eldritch Wizardry and several D&D classes appearing in The Strategic Review, The Dragon, and White Dwarf.

My objection to the Monk and the Paladin are that neither has those stats as true Prime Requisites. Or rather, the Paladin is not a Charisma-based class. It is a strength based class with an unreasonably high Charisma requirement, presumably so that they would be rare. But nothing that they do as a class is Charisma based, it's all alignment based:

Charisma scores of 17 or greater by fighters indicate the possibility of paladin
status IF THEY ARE LAWFUL from the commencement of play for that character. If
such fighters elect to they can then become paladins, always doing lawful deeds, for any
chaotic act will immediately revoke the status of paladin, and it can never be regained.

Greyhawk supplement, page 8

Doesn't even say what happens if their Charisma drops back below 17, only what happens if their alignment changes.

Additionally (and this is just a personal preference) I discarded Paladins because I thought they were unnecessary. The Holy Warrior role is covered pretty well by Clerics.

The Monk is (for bad reasons) made a Cleric subclass, they require Strength 12 and Dexterity and Wisdom of 15, and pretty much all of their abilities are Dexterity based, or Wisdom based if you read Wisdom as Willpower. Personally, I discarded Monks because the campaign I am planning is Fantasy Europe and Oriental Monks didn't really fit. Plus, whoever designed them (presumably Dave Arneson, as he is the sole listed author for the Blackmoor supplement) apparently really likes monks. I men, OK, I get the martial arts stuff, even the semi-supernatural levels. And I can see the climbing (sort of), move silently, hide in shadows, maybe even listening. But Open Locks? Remove Traps? And not just "Same as a thief" but "Opening Locks: Same as a halfling thief." "Remove Traps: Same as a dwarven thief.". The best racial modifier on the charts. But I digress.

DrewID

[Jay R]

Of course. Your original observation was quite correct. There are no CON- or CHA-based classes in original D&D.

As it happens, I think that's a correct decision, because there are no fantasy archetypes based primarily on either endurance or leadership.

If you want to fix it, you'll need to make some up.

[Knaight]

As it happens, I think that's a correct decision, because there are no fantasy archetypes based primarily on either endurance or leadership.

I'm reasonably sure that there are a number of royalty archetypes which directly involve being focused on leadership. There are plenty of archetypes about military commanders of various stature that are based primarily on leadership. Then we get into the other uses of charisma, such as domineering personalities and being socially convincing, and there's a ton of archetypes - they tend towards the villainous (cult leader, rabble rouser, scheming noble), but there are heroic ones (populist or rebel leaders in fantasy stories that favor the common person).

Endurance based archetypes are a lot trickier. The biggest ones I can think of tend to be messengers who make grueling journeys quickly with some critical information, and said archetypes don't tend to lend themselves all too well to protagonists.

[Jay R]

I'm reasonably sure that there are a number of royalty archetypes which directly involve being focused on leadership. There are plenty of archetypes about military commanders of various stature that are based primarily on leadership.

Yup. These are the guys who hire adventurers. Fighters, clerics, wizards, and thieves are adventurers.

Endurance based archetypes are a lot trickier. The biggest ones I can think of tend to be messengers who make grueling journeys quickly with some critical information, and said archetypes don't tend to lend themselves all too well to protagonists.

As I said earlier, use the rules for allowing monster player-characters to create such a role.

[Knaight]

Yup. These are the guys who hire adventurers. Fighters, clerics, wizards, and thieves are adventurers.

They are still fantasy archetypes, and still qualify as sufficient evidence to contradict the phrase "because there are no fantasy archetypes based primarily on either endurance or leadership". If the archetypes are restricted to people who go around in dungeons in small groups then most of them go away, though the hireling mechanics in early D&D still create an obvious spot for them.

[Jay R]

They are still fantasy archetypes, and still qualify as sufficient evidence to contradict the phrase "because there are no fantasy archetypes based primarily on either endurance or leadership". If the archetypes are restricted to people who go around in dungeons in small groups then most of them go away, though the hireling mechanics in early D&D still create an obvious spot for them.

A. I never said, "go around in dungeons".

B. OK, I'll bite: who?

King Arthur was a fighter, with charisma skills. Charlemagnes's paladins were fighters first.

When I say that there are fighter archetypes, I can name Beowulf, Theseus, Gilgamesh, and a host of others.

When I say that there are wizard archetypes, I mean Merlin, Gandalf, Baba Yagi, Archimago, Circe, etc.

The thief archetypes include Grey Mouser, Bilbo, etc.

The cleric archetypes include Friar Tuck, the abbe d'Herblay, St. Camber, the templar knight Sir Brian de Bois-Gilbert, etc.

Everyone has the image of the fighter, wizard, thief, and fighting priest, as adventurers.

Please give your examples of heroic adventurers in a charisma-based fantasy archetype, clearly different from fighters, wizards, thieves, or fighting clerics.

[Knaight]

Please give your examples of heroic adventurers in a charisma-based fantasy archetype, clearly different from fighters, wizards, thieves, or fighting clerics.

Odysseus was a leader first and foremost. Some depictions of Robin Hood focus on the leadership and not the archery. If fantasy archetypes in general are looked at, you've got the cult leader which was absolutely endemic within early sword and sorcery works. Sinbad was a charismatic trickster more than a proper thief, using a slightly different charisma based focus. Guenevere and Isould are both archetypical fantasy characters, and for both of them their charisma is a primary distinguishing trait.

[Jay R]

Odysseus was a leader first and foremost. Some depictions of Robin Hood focus on the leadership and not the archery. If fantasy archetypes in general are looked at, you've got the cult leader which was absolutely endemic within early sword and sorcery works. Sinbad was a charismatic trickster more than a proper thief, using a slightly different charisma based focus. Guenevere and Isould are both archetypical fantasy characters, and for both of them their charisma is a primary distinguishing trait.

Obviously, we are talking past each other, without communicating. I've never suggested that people with high charisma did not exist. But I admit that I still don't see an archetypal class comprising Odysseus, Robin Hood, Sinbad, Guenevere and Isould.

Fighter. Wizard. Thief. Fighting priest. Each of these phrases, in a fantasy context, carries a clear meaning of a general group of protagonist characters. What's the archetype you are proposing?

You could take any one of these, and build a set of rules for a class out of it. But I don't think you can reasonably claim the idea of a charisma-focused class of fantasy characters is being modeled - certainly not one as pervasive as thief or wizard.

By the way, I don't object to building a class to fulfill such a purpose. I once built the background "Actor" for Flashing Blades, because one of my players thought none of the backgrounds in the book would work for a female adventurer in 17th century France, and actresses were more independent.

But if it will get us off this red herring, let me modify my statement thus: there are no charisma-based archetypes in fantasy literature that form heroes and adventurers as common as fighter, wizard, etc.

[Knaight]

But if it will get us off this red herring, let me modify my statement thus: there are no charisma-based archetypes in fantasy literature that form heroes and adventurers as common as fighter, wizard, etc.

That works for me. Later editions of D&D introduced a Warlord as an explicit class, and there's a case to be made that though they are martial they are reasonably distinct from a Fighter (think Arthur versus Lancelot or Gawain), but Fighters as employed get followers anyways.

[Jay R]

That works for me. Later editions of D&D introduced a Warlord as an explicit class, and there's a case to be made that though they are martial they are reasonably distinct from a Fighter (think Arthur versus Lancelot or Gawain), but Fighters as employed get followers anyways.

That makes sense. I don't see it that way, for two reasons.

1. I started with original D&D, and that's what all high level Fighting Men are supposed to do. My paladin got his 200 men and built a castle.

2. They seem to always be fighters first, and war leaders second. Generals are private soldiers who made good. Arthur, William Marshall, Godfrey of Bouillon, Aragorn, and D'Artagnan all have tales told about their fighting skills, and almost all (Arthur is the exception) before they became leaders. To me, that argues that it's a path for a Fighter, not a separate class.

But YMMV. You can make the case for a special class for a leader who isn't primarily a fighter. The best example might be Joan of Arc.