OSRPGtalk

Words from a grognard

Tag: #classes

Off-Screen Adventures

April 16, 2025 / / 0 Comments

This is a topic about which I’m still very much unsettled. It’s the idea that PCs engage in activities which very much involve adventuring, yet it all happens off-screen. How best to approach this, if it’s going to happen?

This is actually present in the early system rules.In 1e, Gygax speaks of spying missions, complete with tables to help adjudicate them. He speaks of assassinations, also including tables. Those tables generate the results of the activities, though, as the activities aren’t played out at the gaming table.

Granted, one could always just use those tables for use with NPCs assigned to spy or assassinate a foe as part of high-level play, without a PC getting involved. there’s no written instructions as to that being the intention, though, which leaves the door open for it including PC activity. When one also considers that Gygax described PCs being out of play off-screen while journeying to consult an oracle, it’s easy to see that off-screen play was part of how things were done. Ergo, we should expect off-screen activity as part of play; the only question is what activities should reside off-screen.

Just riffing on what Gygax has describe, I reckon information-gathering of many sorts would be good options. Consulting with oracles, scouting wilderness areas for basic information on what resides there, spy missions into foreign towns and cities to get the lay of the land before arriving, and so on. Put specialist PCs to work doing their specialist things: send thieves to scout out that city, a hunter or scout to get a general sense of the land beyond that mountain pass, a wizard scrying the area where a transfer portal opens on another plane, and so forth.

This is all stuff GMs can certainly do on their own. I think it would behoove designers to provide guidance and support for it, though, as what the system expressly supports typically appears in higher quality than if it’s just something mentioned as being possible in passing. I know that I’ve very rarely had a player ask for such an off-screen jaunt. I don’t recall any happening at the tables I’ve played at. I suspect it’s not something that is regarded as a normal part of play, in a wider sense.

PC Development to Set Up the Late Game

April 16, 2025 / / 0 Comments

As part of my thinking on classes and class development, I’ll offer up this tidbit. I think PC development in the lower levels should set up play at higher levels. As it stands in the extant rules tomes of the early D&D lineages, PCs, upon reaching name level, can build or buy or take over a base of some sort, suddenly being possessed of administrative and leadership abilities that haven’t been expressly developed anywhere along the line. Having a few henchmen regularly accompanying the PC doesn’t impart such abilities, nor does anything else along the way.

So, we should reset our classes to do exactly that. Here are a few things I think would help:

Recast generic henchmen as Apprentices or Protoges or some such. A fighter acquires a squad of fighting men as henchmen. These are the NPCs who will become, should the fighter live to raise a stronghold, his officers and advisers. Magic Users will have apprentices who will join them in their future towers. Thieves will have protoges and students who will provide the core of a future guild.

I think the class descriptions should also formalize finding and maintaining contacts among the movers and shakers in the classes’ areas of operation. Fighters will develop contacts with military leaders in the service of surrounding nobility or other authorities. Thieves will earn allies of a sort with underworld figures. MUs will develop a network of allied casters.

The flip side is that it could also be a very good thing to develop some animosities with notable NPCs. That, though, may be best a purely diagetic issue within the purview of the GM.

A PC should also develop some abilities that will be necessary or useful at higher levels of play. Wizards develop not only knowledge of, but also some abilities surrounding travel to and existence on other planes of existence, for example. Thieves develop spying abilities beyond simple stealth skills so they can perform spying missions on behalf of friendly authorities and allies. Fighters develop leadership skills in keeping with the need to defend stronghold lands and the peasants who move there.

Keeping an eye on the prize, so to speak, of high level play is something to do throughout the early and middle levels of a PC’s advancement. The PCs should always be preparing for what’s next in their advancement.

Classes, Sub-Classes, and Kits–Oh, My!

April 15, 2025 / / 0 Comments

Continuing on with discussion of character classes, I’m offering some thoughts on classes as I’m now crafting them. This approach could, of course, change as the voices in my head demand, though the chorus seems to have settled on this approach. ; )

Keeping with the thought that a Class is a broad, general archetype that can appear in many guises, structuring the many guises seems to be where the primary challenge of Class design can be found. The approach I’m taking involves Sub-Classes that provide specialization within the broader Class archetype, and then Kits that dress the character diagetically for play. there’s nothing really new to all this; I find that keeping it firmly in mind helps a good deal when drilling into the details of abilities, though, as shaping and reshaping classes can get messy.

The broad archetype of a Fighting Man, for example, covers a good deal of ground in possibility. Think of the many ways such a character could appear: a soldier practiced in fighting in tight formation as part of a unit; a skirmisher who engages in freewheeling melees without tight formations; troopers fighting from horseback; specialized hunters who seek out undead (or demons or other specialized foes) and eliminate them; warriors who range far and wide, running great distances, engaging in quick raids and retiring into the wilds to appear elsewhere before the enemy can fully respond; individuals fighting for spectacle and glory in front of crowds to earn coin…many ways to specialize in fighting.

Therein lies the heart of the Sub-Class. The basic abilities of a fighter, for instance, are expanded in terms that highlight abilities for a refined purpose. The troopers on horseback and the infantry on foot each fight, though the infantry would be lost on horseback and the troopers out of place on the ground. I view is as additive to the Class description–a Sub-Class adds capabilities to the general Class abilities. Where the Class provides some general fighting abilities, each Sub-Class then adds more specific fighting abilities plus any non-combat abilities that support its role in the setting and/or party. Craft all those abilities with an eye on how the class develops and the roles it expresses in play (per my previous post) and a well-rounded type of character emerges from the seas of possibility.

Kits, on the other hand, place characters in the setting by providing a background from whence they originate. A kit involves a base cultural foundation–say, a semi-nomadic, tribal culture–and then builds a setting-based description around that. The clothes commonly worn in that culture, the types of weapons traditionally used, what virtues are touted, how wealth is treated, and so much more can be expressed in a Kit.

While I’ve no interest in character backstories, I find that character backgrounds of this sort are quite useful and contribute a lot to play. Thus, any chargen subsystem I use will likely involve selecting a background Kit as part of the process in preparing a PC for play. Attaching a distinct meaning to being from the lands of the Sea Kings or some such helps a good deal with characterization and making PCs distinct.

Classes, Sub-classes, and Prestige–Oh, My!

April 3, 2025 / / 0 Comments

After seeing yet another discussion about classes advancing and specializing as they do, I’m moved to spill some thoughts on the matter. It’s something I’ve thought about often as I’ve been designing, with the usual to and fro in feelings as I consider different aspects.

I’ve landed on the belief that such an approach is laudable…with some caveats. The foremost caveat is that the advancement needs to be believable in diagetic terms. I expect a reasonable simulation of the setting in all things, and this is no exception. Your fighter can specialize into a sub-class, yes, as long as it’s believable.

Looking at AD&D, for example, where the abilities of Rangers and Paladins can be far removed from the abilities of a basic Fighter. Alongside the expectation that, in the setting, each PC had to spend time as an apprentice or trainee to gain class abilities, I’d expect that gaining all of the special abilities of a Ranger or Paladin would require much time spent training. The character isn’t going to wake up one day and suddenly be able to lay on hands. The player can have the PC retire from play for a while to reflect becoming an apprentice training in the new abilities; it isn’t going to simply happen with an increase in level on a random Monday morning.

The sort of specialization that does make sense involves adding a bit of emphasis on an existing ability or two, and then adding new abilities over time after that specialization. Gygax’s Thief-Acrobat was an early riff on the approach, with a freeze on development of some abilities and the addition of others; failing in adding emphasis to any existing abilities (IIRC).

I also think that such specializations should vary by what level the PC is when making the switch. An 8th-lvl Fighter becoming a Ranger, in addition to requiring a great deal of time for training, shouldn’t reappear in play as a 8th-lvl Ranger, complete with spellcasting ability. The PC just completed “Ranger Basic Training” without any real time spent in the field and can now cast spells just because? When it comes to level-based abilities like that, I expect the now-specialized PC to have to wait a bit. Sure, the HD and attacks stay the same as an 8th-lvl Fighter; any lvl-based abilities as a Ranger take extra time to appear.

If a designer truly wants to allow for sub-class specialization, I reckon it’ll be cooked into the system from the outset. I’d rather see sub-class options unlocked at an early level (have to be chosen upon reaching 3rd or 4th lvl, for instance), than an ad hoc approach for sub-classing at any level. E.g., All fighter begin as fighters and then can sub-class any time up to reaching 3rd level without ever having the option to do so later. (This is tied to my thoughts on using character classes, in general.)

The choosing of a sub-class should be well-regulated, in other words. The possibility should be worked out well in advance to fit in with the general simulation of setting. Sub-classing after character generation can be a good thing if planned for in the design at the outset. A fighter could begin as a trooper (mounted specialist) or begin as a foot soldier and then specialize later, with suitable time and adjustments to herald the change.

(As you can likely guess, I’ve never been a fan of changing classes in D&D.I shudder when I hear of players “dipping” into a class for a level in tales of 3e and beyond. That sort of thing throws me completely out of the setting and game at hand.)

Fighter Development

February 25, 2025 / / 0 Comments

I’ve also been considering fighter development, of late. When a fighter PC improves, what choices are available? Simply increasing bonuses to attack or damage rolls doesn’t add any new capabilities or variety. New equipment can add a bit, though not enough. So what else is there?

Added fighting capabilities are likely part of the answer. I’m not fond of many of the feats that I’ve seen added in so many OSR/NSR systems, as they feel like superhero powers to me, and thus something I don’t care for. I’m looking at such things as increasing the number of opponents engaged at the same time without penalties and squad tactics involving other fighters.

That leads right into another development route I’m trying out–squads. Fighters develop squads of fighters–small mercenary units of sorts–in lieu of general henchmen. Well, all the henchmen are part of the fighting squad, and required to also be fighters. Not that the full squad will be with the fighter at all times, as the PC will also likely have a home base of some sort that will need attendance when the PC is off adventuring. The squad is part of building personal holdings and eventual domain play.

Soldiers have also been called on to build fortifications and siege engines and all that sort of combat engineering, so I figure adding some capabilities of that sort will help. Perhaps basic leadership (building a squad, yo). General physical abilities of running, leaping, and the like. Let the fighters have a capable physical presence in general.

Fighters and stunts

February 25, 2025 / / 0 Comments

I’ve been looking at how to add a bit of variety to fighters and bits of interest to address the widespread criticism that fighters are boring. I’ve looked at a lot of products that add to the fighter’s arsenal, so to speak, yet none that really grab me. DCC’s Mighty Deeds, for one example that’s been recommended many times…just doesn’t thrill me.

I want stunts that force an actual decision on part of the player–a stunt to possibly shorten the melee or some consequence that may lengthen the fight or place the PC in even more danger. Neither choice should be obviously superior to the other or there’s no real decision to be made. That means no stunt that is merely an appendage on a regular attack roll or decided on after the roll; a stunt has to be declared in advance, similar to casting a spell. A stunt also has to involve greater danger for the PC–derring do requires actual daring.

After playing around with a few options, I’ve landed on one that looks really promising. It involves two phases to a stunt–a set up and an exploit. This fits in well with my melee system, because it’s a phased system and has three phases: an early phase, a general phase, and a late phase. The phases make handling monster attack sequences, multiple attacks by PCs, and other special circumstances easier to handle than just lumping everything together in the general phase. In the same fashion that a thug in the corner will throw one dagger early and a second dagger late, a stunting fighter will set up early and exploit late. Splitting a stunt into two parts works with the phasing structure.

What about difficulty? Instead of having to work out a bunch of penalties to apply for various stunts, there’s a built in penalty–each half the stunt requires an attack roll. The player has to roll successfully twice, which reduces the overall chance of success. If a PC has a 70% chance of success with each attack, then being successful with both rolls ends up with a 49% chance overall. That’s a coin flip, essentially.

I don’t want a stunt to simply inflict extra damage, as that’s rather boring and reduces the choice to a simple math problem. A stunt should accomplish something other than simple damage. Inflict a condition that slows the target or reduces its attack rate or decreases the damage it does. Force the foe to move in a particular direction where an ally can drop a boulder on it or push it over a cliff. Reduce its sensory capabilities, blinding or deafening it.

Then there’s the question of what happens on a failure? If the set up fails, what does that mean for the PC failing? Decreased defensive ability for attacks received during the general phase? Needs a recovery move of some sort to get back into the fight properly? What if the set up is good and the exploit fails? What are the consequences? I want there to be some significant risk taken on when stunting. Perhaps the stunting PC has make it through the general phase without being hit to launch the exploit; getting hit interrupts the stunt (like spells can get interrupted).

The melee system already involves a decision as to how aggressive or defensive a PC will be during the melee round. Stunting will have to be associated with a more aggressive approach, so perhaps the defensive penalty already associated with that will be enough. (I don’t see taking a risk with a stunt happening when fighting defensively.)

The bits and pieces of the stunting system are all there, I think. It’s just assembling the essential parts into a whole that can stand up with use that’s left to do.

Adding minor miracles

April 30, 2024 / / 0 Comments

I don’t care for clerics, despite having played some truly memorable cleric PCs that are among my favorites. I’m just not fond of the general fighter-magic user vibe, without one of those being very much primary and the other very much secondary. Because of that–and other issues–I’m not including clerics in the projects.

I was involved in a reddit discussion some time ago that convinced me that it could be a good thing to include some sort of divine magic, though, especially if it weren’t entirely class-based. Something that other characters could conceivably avail themselves of. I’ve been chewing on that periodically ever since.

The other day, an approach finally clicked into place on that count. I’ve not played around with it thoroughly, yet it seems to be fully viable and fits within my preferences. I was reading another post about orisons on a blog somewhere (was trying to work out what to do with handling undead without clerics) and had an epiphany: I can use a version of orisons to accomplish it all.

Orisons as standard chants/litanies/prayers that anybody can learn. Most of the time, for most people, the orison won’t have any greater effect than soothing the person using it–no mechanical effect and no in-world effect other than that. Some characters, however, by dint of qualifying attributes, can occasionally invoke actual divine favor to accomplish mechanical effects.

I expect to use the channeling system for spellcasting to help regulate it, with the channeling rate lower than that witches and wizards can achieve. Other characters who are sensitive to divine power can assist if they also know the relevant chant. Perhaps even non-sensitive characters can do so.

The power level of orisons is also limited. They’re not a way of channeling divine wrath and striking down monsters, they’re a way of deriving a bit of favor and fortune on a basic level.

This also addresses my need for some way to handle undead without clerics. I can see a class of characters who are sensitive, have trained with many orisons that affect undead and other supernatural entities (demons, et al) and some ability to physically confront (fight) the horrors, too. The class won’t be a top notch fighter, and certainly not a powerful spellcaster. It will be useful, though, and I expect fun to play.

And the orisons will add a nice touch to the priestly class I already have planned–friars. Those friars who are sensitive (could be most) can occasionally get a slight boost via orisons. The wandering holy helpers get another thing that sets them apart as servants of the pantheon.

Classes, templates, & packages–oh, my!

January 26, 2024 / / 0 Comments

I see a component of classic games involving supporting the simulation aspect of play–that characters are part of a setting and their capabilities correspond to those reasonably found in the setting. The setting has people trained to fight, for instance, because such roles are essential in some fashion. Furthermore, as most of the roles to be assumed in the setting involve a good deal of training to fulfill, there’s not a lot of crossover training to be had. (Medieval fantasy settings lack community colleges, ya know, so bopping on down to the school to get a semester of classes for a different role doesn’t happen.) Thus, it’s reasonable, in most instances, to not have super-sneaky, magic-wielding, fighting superstars as characters. (Sorry, munchkin.)

The structures of classes address that issue. (And then the idea of multi-classing dumps it on its head.) Templates, which are guides for beginning characters that allow for freer development later, do the same sort of work. Even the use of skill packages help establish PC capabilities with clear boundaries at the outset, then allowing for freer development after.

The approach I’m taking with my hack of D&D is that of having a base of shared skills & abilities for characters of each type, then building sub-classes by adding different abilities. All the fighters, for example, share a core group of abilities, then are differentiated into sub-classes by added abilities. Some are mounted warriors, others skirmishers, and so on. Thievish characters can be burglars or tomb robbers or thugs. This approach ends up mimicking the original rules, though with slightly different outcomes; a fighter subclass that has a lot of non-fighting abilities won’t be as capable at fighting as a subclass that focuses on fighting, in contrast to the paladin, for example.

I know of games that don’t use classes, per se, and yet still provide a measure of specialization through the use of skill packages; Powers & Perils comes to mind. A package is simply a group of skills that would be typically possessed by somebody in the setting who works as a(n) “xxx.” A jeweler would have a group skills that are common to jewelers and take the jeweler package. A soldier would have the package of skills that are common to soldiers. In this fashion, the roles of PCs are set out despite character creation being a point-buy system and nominally free-form. The packages usually offer a discounted point cost to encourage coherent character creation.

© 2025 OSRPGtalk

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑