K is for Knightly Orders

Knightly orders. Orders are practically a necessity if there is a cavalier in the party. Unearthed Arcana states, "In order to become a cavalier, a character must be in service to some deity, noble, order, or special cause," (pg. 14). Even without cavaliers in the setting, orders are a nice support group for a fighter to join; a secular order is the equivalent in many ways to a guild and is more accurate than the generic "adventurers guild" of many games. My focus is on religious orders, primarily because I am a religious person in my personal life. Your mileage may vary.

 

Knightly orders provide structure and are not necessarily religious in nature. Looking at Greyhawk for inspiration, there are religious orders that are similar to Earth's Templars such as the Brotherhood of the Lance Unbroken (Heiroenous), the Order of the Six Severed Hands (Hands), and, as a historian one of my personal favorites, the Knights of the Book (Delleb). However, other orders are secular in nature, such as the Knights of the Hart.

H is for Heroes

A cavalier in action! A true hero!

Heroes. I find the concept is alien to many gamers these days. I say that because, one of the worst things to come out of the 1990s and even the late 1980s is the skill/power concept. No, it did not begin with D20/3.0 (although that was the penultimate expression of the concept). What I mean is two ideas. First, there is the attitude of "If I don't have the skill I cannot attempt to perform a certain action," and its close corollary, "If I fail the skill roll, I miss it all." The gaming community is ripe with stories of failed notice rolls and the inability of the character to see the door in front of him. It's even become a running joke in some webcomics:

 

Elan fumbles a Spot check.

 

 

Second, there is the attitude that the abilities completely define the character. Followed too far, and this leads to 4.0-type skills that are just the "pushing of a keyboard button." At the other extreme, it leads to the ossification of the archetypal system that is a strength of old-school gaming and (1e) AD&D in particular. Allow me to elaborate on this last point.

 

Old-school gamers are quite pleased with the four "archetypal" classes: the armored fighter wielding  a sword and shield, the wise cleric healing and turning back the forces of Undeath, the skulking thief armed with quick-wit and ready blade, and the mysterious magic-user summoning arcane power to slay. In B/X and BECMI we also have the concept of "race as class": the sturdy dwarf fighter, the bright-eyed elf who combines steel with sorcery, and the resolute hobb-, er halfling fighter. These are clearly defined images. Anyone who has lived in western culture can equate these to literary and mythical figures: Lancelot, St. Francis of Assisi, the Grey Mouser, Merlin, Gimli, Lord Elrond of Rivendell, and Samwise. They work.

 

Some might say that the multiclassing in AD&D muddies the waters a bit, but not really. An elf fighter/magic-user is no different from a B/X elf. Even "new" multiclasses are acceptable: isn't Frodo more of a fighter/thief? And opening up new classes to demi-humans is good as well for the same reasons; Bilbo is probably just a straight up thief, for example. New specialty classes open up archetypes; as long as one doesn't go too far, it doesn't dilute things much. Rangers, monks, and druids, o mai! Even brand new classes from dragon are adapted from other games/editions are fine as well. Necromancer? Yes, definitely an archetype.

 

"We don't have a cleric...somebody is going to die, dude!"

 

If everyone is an archetype with their own little niche, what does one do when that niche is empty. So, how does a fighter climb a wall? How does cleric get rid of the trap his spell discovered if the thief is already down? The answer: very carefully! The character is not defined by the character sheet and its stats; the character is defined by the PLAYER!!! Both of the situations above can be solved without a thief. the thing is, the thieving abilities work (by my estimation) in a combat round (lock picking) or without extraneous equipment (wall climbing). Take note of the scene in "Conan the Barbarian." When climbing the Tower of the Serpent the two fighters (Conan and Valeria) are using a rope; the thief (Subodai) is climbing the wall freehand.

 

If the party had to disarm a trap without a thief, it would take them at least 15 minutes. They would describe their plan, and I would assign a chance, usually less than a thief....DEX as a %, add a racial modifier if applicable (a dwarf removing a trap, for instance), possibly doubling it if the plan was solid, halving it without a plan. Easily done.

 

What about other skills? Well, previous profession would be a guide (Secondary Skills Table, DMG pg. 12) and roll a % based on an applicable stat doubled or even tripled. Also class would. A fighter might not ride as well as a cavalier, but he should have some proficiency. As an aside, the reason I do not use the non-weapon proficiency system from DSG/WSG is that it leads down that straitjacket road too easily. Try anything; I'll give the player a chance.

 

I have wandered far from my intended post, but that's ok. Let me wrap up by saying two things. First, the PCs in AD&D are a cut about the average. Of the four archetypal classes, three have more starting hit points than normal men. If one looks at some of the expanded classes, it is possible to have way more than the norm; a ranger or barbarian with the right stats and rolls can start the game with a max of 20 HP at first level! Second, Kevin Siembieda writes in several of his games that it always amazes him that people forget they're playing HEROES! They complain that the character is not normal or realistic. Well, duh! You are a HERO!

 

Until tomorrow, gentle readers, keep the sword blade sharp and the components near to hand!

 

 

C is for Cavaliers (of the Keebler Variety!)

I have mentioned before that I use the material in Unearthed Arcana, and, yes, that includes the cavalier class. Of course, since I like to tinker with the rules, I've made some adjustments for elves.

Dragon #114

First, however, let me mention Chris Booth's article "The Elven Cavalier" from Dragon 114. It is well written; however, it proceeds from the assumption that elves or more like the wood-dwelling, well, wood elves. For some elven cultures, such changes will work, but they are not necessary. I'll discuss this some more in a bit.

As far as rules are concerned, I make a couple of minor changes to the class. First, since "A human cavalier (but not an elf or a half-elf) makes all attacks from horseback as if the character were 1 level higher," I allow elven cavaliers to fire a bow from horseback without penalty. Now, nowhere does it explicitly state in AD&D hat there is a penalty for firing from horseback. Note that short composite bows are a required weapon for elven cavaliers per UA. This gives them something back and makes them a tad more unique. Second, I remove the weapon of choice for "the horseman’s mace, horseman’s flail, or horseman’s military pick (player’s choice)" and replace it with short bow, long bow, short composite bow, and long composite bow. For followers, I use the Plains and Woods tables from the article "Tables and Tables of Troops" in Dragon 99, using the numbers gained from UA. Also, since half-elves are pretty much ignored, I allow half-elf cavaliers to come from either human or elven upbringing and function as that race for purposes of cavalier abilities. And that's pretty much it.

A Knight of Rivendell...or is that Celene? Maybe Evermeet?

I said above that Mr. Booth's article was adequate for the time. However, in the last 25 years, perceptions have changed. Much of that is due to Peter Jackson's interpretation of J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle Earth works. Thanks to PJ, we can now see elves in plate and riding roughshod over warg-riders (good scene in Hobbit: And Unexpected Journey, that). Like I said, the old way was to view elves as woodsy, dandelion-eating forest-dwellers. Now that might hold true for Wood Elves and Wild Elves; High Elves and Grey Elves, on the other hand, are more...noble, for want of a better term. And this is true even in old school AD&D. There is the court of Queen Yolonde of Celene on Oerth, a realm that Gary Gygax's Gord novels assure us is protected by Elven cavaliers and knights. And why not on Toril as well? I can see elven cavaliers in Evermeet and old Myth Drannor; it fits the feel of those nations without breaking them.

Sweet water and light laughter until next, gentle readers!

Gil-Galad was an elven king...his sword was long, his LANCE was keen...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wAH0SEtgdI

B is for Baldricks (or Henchmen, if you prefer!).

"All I want for Christmas..."

Henchmen and hirelings. If there is any other potential gold mine for both roleplaying and tactical advantage that is so sorely underutilized, I have no idea what it might be. Possibly those iron rations (1 week!) in the bottom of every PC's backpack. And that's really a shame, too, because they are useful.

 

Allow me to relate a gaming truism I learned early on. Not long after Unearthed Arcana was released, I ran I6 Ravenloft for a (mostly) new group of players (I'm thinking this was my Halloween, 1986, game). One of the players was running a 6 or 7th level Cavalier and he had his men-at-arms with him. They had been a great help to this point; remember, the tactical advantage I mentioned earlier? At this point the fledgling knight had a baker's dozen of followers that were useful for room clearing, providing support, etc. They were well-utilized in that respect. However, they had no personality or names; they were just random fighter minis I had on the table. They were playing pieces, nothing more.

 

"The Master of Ravenoft is having guests for dinner...."

 

 

As the game drug on to the wee hours of the morning, something happened that night; his followers started to become precious to him. The classic Ravenloft module is a death trap, a meat grinder; maybe not up to the level of the Tomb of Horrors, but it can cut through a party, even one with 13-14 followers. Well, the NPCs were getting cut down; finally there was only one left. It was a female archer (that was the mini!), but she made it through the first half of the castle. She started to develop a personality as I moved her around. she was Jenna, a fiery red-haired warrior and she was pissed! Her comrades had fallen but she would not! She would protect her lord to her last breath!!!

 

The players began to respond to her as a fellow player, not an NPC. At the final confrontation with Strahd, it was close. They had the icon and the sword, but they were having problems cornering the devil Strahd. I was using some alternate damage rules I had picked up somewhere (Dragon maybe?), that stated that a nat 20 with even a regular arrow had a chance (5%!) of piercing a vampire's heart as a stake. I have never seen players so intensely watching a GM NPC roll! The d20 came up 20! I shook my d10s (the set I still use!); the yellow die rolled out (black is always high) and came up 3. I rolled out the black one and it stopped on 0. Strahd was immobilized! They proceeded to end Strahd's existence and the victory did not feel cheap to them at all. After the game, I read that largely ignored section in the DMG, and Jenna made the leap from follower to henchman, the first in (at the time) five years of gaming.

 

The proper use of hirelings and henchmen has fallen away amongst younger gamers. I think it has more to do with the MMO experience. Most MMO gamers I bring to the tabletop get the idea of iconic roles: Wizard = Nuker or Crowd Control, Cleric is the Buffer, etc.  But followers: who cares? (On a side note, Star Wars: The Old Republic has an excellent NPC/follower system for a computer game and gamers that come from that MMO want followers!) I think that the fact that Gary devoted 9 of 230 pages (3.9 %) in the DMG to hirelings and henchman says something to their usefulness.

 

 

 

First, as I have briefly mentioned, followers are great as a force multiplier and add needed tactical advantage to a small party. Nowhere is this more evident than T1 The Village of Hommlett. A low-level party of 4-6 that go into the moathouse without hirelings is looking to die. And there are opportunities to find help in Hommlett, even outside the obvious (the traders's spy, Turuko and Kobort, Elmo, Spugnoir, etc.). Almost every adult male in the village is a member of the militia and owns some armor and a weapon. Maybe they would like a chance to take part in a grand adventure, maybe pick up some extra coin? This is also seen in B2 Keep on the Borderlands: plenty of mercs and others around to hire.

 

 

 

Second, there are the roleplaying opportunities. There is some discussion amongst literary scholars that Shakespeare's best character are actually the servants; they seem more real than the protagonists and antagonists at times, more three dimensional and not just parodies; we can relate to them better. They also add some much needed comedy in some of the darker tragedies. Hirelings and henchmen can do the same. Another story. In B2, there are two guards for the captured merchant in the hobgoblin cave. If saved, they will swear service to the party for a year. Boring, right? Not if played right. I have the guards, when freed, drop to their knees and beg for swords and armor that they might enter into service and avenge both their captivity and their fellow guards who were killed when they were captured. I usually make them brothers, one quiet and taciturn, probably a crossbowman, the other loud and boisterous, a axe and shield man. Usually, I have them swear to a party member, one who interacts with them first, usually a fellow fighter. But maybe the mage went to them first and checked their wounds....now the mage has gained a couple of meat shields. These followers can also be used to impart information that the characters might need. Maybe Robert Shieldwall knows a bit of Hobgoblin and heard the hobgoblin guards muttering about the gnolls higher up on the ravine or laughing about the stupid goblins they keep stealing from.

 

However, like General Lee says in Gettysburg, do not love your NPCs too much; they are not the stars but the supporting cast. Today, I probably wouldn't have left that crucial arrow shot up to Jenna; fortunately, she did not upstage the PCs but was seen as a helpful tool, maybe even a friend. So, please, DMs, work on those followers! They can be quite useful in setting  the tone of your game and adding to the enjoyment of all.

 

 

K is for Knighthood

Ok, another short one today. I've been swamped this week so far and it's only getting worse. ~sigh~

I find that there are plenty out there in the OSR who do not like Unearthed Arcana. I find that attitude amusing. UA was edited by Gary and, in many ways, is a preview of what a Gygaxian "2E" might have looked like. However, because it does not fit into some pre-conceived notion of what "real" AD&D is, it has to go.

I invoke the magic word "Balderdash!" There is nothing wrong with it. And one of the two classes that (incorrectly) generates a considerable amount of ire is the Cavalier.

The argument generally goes that the cavalier is unnecessary because a single-classed fighter is a better choice and that one can simply roleplay a fighter as a cavalier. The problem with this argument is that the PHB already had an assassin class. Isn't assassin merely a job description for a thief or fighter? (That's the same argument used for why it was removed in "2E" and was a prestige class in 3.0/3.5.)

The assassin establishes the fact that sometimes, for various reasons, a specialized class is necessary. The counter-argument is that the cavalier "gives too much" to the player. The cavalier is "overpowered." Funny. I thought that the fighter was a better fighter, especially with specialization. There are limits placed on the cavalier. Alignment is restricted; if he becomes neutral or evil in morality, then the cavalier loses the ability to operate at negative hit points. Evil cavaliers are also hunted.

The next argument is that DMs and players usually ignore all the class restrictions on alignment, behavior, etc. I have to say, "So?" If the end-user misuses the product, does that mean the design is flawed? Of course not!

The thing to reminder is that a mere fighter is not a knight. A knight is a chivalrous warrior. That is more than just being an honorable fighter and a good Joe. There is a certain attitude and skill that is involved in the concept. And the most important, the one that really sets the knight apart from other warriors is the horse.

First and foremost, the knight is a horse warrior, trained practically from birth to fight from horseback and to espouse the Chivalric Code of Honor. Combat is Glory. Defense of any Charge until Death. Courage and Enterprise in Obedience. The Knight is chained to a demanding lifestyle. He's not just a "good fighter dude." The horse is a big part of it. Lancelot was dishonored when he had to ride in a wagon because he had no horse. Horses were ransomed just like the knights themselves. Norman knights on the First Crusade dropped their armor in the heat, but never their horses.

Of course there is more to than the horse. Without his code a knight is just a brigand on a horse. Sort of like this guy:

That code is what keeps his force in check. He is a superb warrior but his might is chained to oaths of obedience and loyalty, oaths taken before the altar of a Good (although not necessarily a Lawful) deity. That is why evil cavaliers are hunted down relentlessly; it is not because they are evil, but instead because they are Oathbreakers who are now unchecked.

Maybe I make too much of this. Maybe I have too romantic a spirit. Naw... ;)