D&D Challenge Day 7: Favorite Edition

Favorite edition? For me that's 1st edition with Unearthed Arcana, followed closely by B/X and the Swords & Wizardry Complete retro-clone.

I don't normally repost my own blogs, but the following is a a blog I posted back in April detailing the various editions and retro-clones. Enjoy, and until tomorrow, gentle readers, pick an edition!

***************

Well, I shall attempt to be brief, but that's going to be hard with today's topic, gentle readers. There are, at last count, 6 editions of D&D (more depending on how you count!) and numerous clones and licensed properties that use the D&D "engine." I also will not mention Chainmail as that is not D&D per se. If I miss some, please chalk it up to a headache I have today!

First up is the edition that started it all: Dungeons and Dragons, also called variously 0e(dition), O(riginal)e(dition), and the LBB (Little Brown Books). The core classes and races as well as statistics are there: Clerics, Men of Magic, Fighting Men (Thieves were added in the Greyhawk Supplement); elves, dwarves, Hobb...er, Halflings; experience points; etc.  Some things are noticeably different from later editions, such as d6 damage for all weapons. This version is not "new player friendly;" it assumes a previous experience with wargaming. One of things to like about this edition is the lack of defined rules. Imagination was key. There were also no hard limits: science and sorcery were mixed in Castle Greyhawk as well as in Blackmoor.

On a sidenote, the impact of D&D was felt in other games. Traveller when it came out, arrived in a LBB (Little Black Book) Edition with a similar division of books: Characters and Combat, Starships, and Worlds mirroring Men and Magic, Creatures and Treasure, and Underworld and Wilderness Adventures.

I'll talk about the next two together. It was quickly apparent as D&D sold rapidly across the country that a hit was on their hands. The deficiency about a lack of instruction was noted. As AD&D was prepared Holmes D&D, a primer on roleplaying that took eh character to 3rd level was introduced as a stopgap measure. Alignments went from three (L, C, N) to 5 (LG, CG, LE, CE, N). Holmes was never intended to be a truly stand alone game but more of a "gateway" game to introduce the game to potential players.  After AD&D was published, D&D Basic and Expert  (B/X or Moldvey/Cook D&D) was introduced. My impression is that D&D was supposed to become the home game that one could tinker with to one's content. AD&D was the framework for the "international" and tournament game, a framework that would allow for greater precision in competition. This is to some extent conjecture, but is the feeling I have. I also like to point put that the blurb on the back of the Basic Book touts it as "family entertainment."  Way different from being a  smelly neckbeard basement-dweller game. There are some important things in B/X: race as class, a return to the 3 alignments, and a less technically precise combat. It is, in many ways, divorced from its wargaming roots; not so AD&D.

I'm using a pic of the current reprints because they are so sweet! For me, this is AD&D. As much as people deride 3.0/3e for becoming a minis game, it is still an important component of first edition as well. All of those fiddly numbers: weapon speed, armor modifiers, the confusing initiative. It is apparent that Gary never really left his wargaming roots. He's the lead author here. B/X and the later BECMI had different leads and therefore way different feels. Here we gain the 9 alignments (LG, NG, CG, LN, NT, CN, LE, NE, CE); more races (gnomes, half orcs and a plethora of elves and dwarves); more classes (assassin, monks, cavaliers, etc.). It can be argued that, like minis, 3e's fascination with "a class for anyone" can be laid at Gygax's feet. And what are the bard and thief-acrobat if not proto-prestige classes. The introductions of skills as "nonweapon proficiencies begins here as well in Oriental Adventures. We also gain most of the campaign worlds: Greyhawk, Toril, Kyrnn, and Ravenloft (as a module, true; it is in 2e that it would become a world).

Basic had a facelift in the mid 1980s. It was truly its own game and a very playable one as well and is termed BECMI (Basic-Expert-Companion-Master-Immortal) by fans. BECMI's lead author was Frank Mentzer. The game took  characters from 1st to 36th level and then beyond to Immortal levels. The expanded game setting of the Known World (to become Mystara in 2e) had its own line of gazetteers. No other D&D campaign world has really had this level of attention to detail.

With the ouster of Gary from TSR, the company continued on. In 1989, second edition hit the scene. Love it or hate it, it is still the longest in print version. And, boy, were they prolific! Splat books for the classes and the addition of kits to customize classes. Humanoids as viable PC races (The Complete Humanoid). Even Psionics was revamped into an arguably workable system (although it works best where magic is not present). Planescape, Ravenloft, Mystara/Red Steel, Dark Sun for new campaign worlds as well as revamps of Toril, Oerth and Kyrnn. There was much crying over the loss of many of the core classes like moinks and assassins. However, it was a return to those core four classes (Warrior/Mage/Priest/Rogue) seen in 0e. The other problem players had was with the  "unbalancing" kits. I believe that's due to a poor DM, but opinions vary. I don't play this edition enough. It is a complete system, still readily available with reprints of the core books arriving in May. And it is well integrated and planned out.

In the mid 1990s, we got the Player's Option books or 2.5. It did not supplant or replace 2e, but it allowed for point buy character creation, spell point systems and the like. It was really more of a D&D "toolbox" that had "official" ways to change the rules. I never knew anyone to play this; I did own it and wanted to run or play it. The idea of a creating a wizard who could use a sword or have thieving abilities was novel.

Enter the 21st century and the acquisition of the brand by Wizards of the Coast and Monte Cook. Third edition. D20. There has been much written about this over the years. This version focuses more on the mins and the tactical nature of combat. One could argue that was true of 1e as well; it was really B/X and BECMI that were roleplaying focused without the need for minis. I won't go into the mechanics of 3.0/3.5. Suffice to say, though, that it is still recognizably D&D. The strength and weakness of d20 are the same in my opinion: the OGL. The Open Game License allowed third party publishers to use the engine to create games and supplements. That is good in that we got some really outstanding games such as Mutants and Masterminds and Castles and Crusades. The flip side is that there is A LOT of material for players and especially DMs to wade through, some of which is sub-par and mediocre.

Fourth edition....bored yet? This is the version that receives the most vitriol these days. It is arguably not D&D but a MMO with dice and minis. Some of the ideas make sense to some extent: magic-missile as an "at-will power" makes mages more survivable, but also makes it like hitting the 1 button in a video game. Alignment was simplified and the concept of "unaligned" was brought into play. There is a dearth of roleplaying material; 1e was guilty of that as well, but did have material on hirelings, sages, creation of the campaign world. This was a poor attempt to change the brand to appeal to young computer gamers and a mistake that I believe WotC has realized.

And so, on the horizon, is "D&D Next." From what I have seen of the playtest materials, this edition is going to attempt to become "all things for all people." That might work for a Roman Catholic saint, but I have my doubts as to its viability for a RPG. It would appear that it will be a stripped-down version very similar to D&D basic, but without race as class. There will be a plethora of options so one can ramp it up to something akin to 3.5 or anything in between. We'll see how that works. I am cautiously optimistic.

And, now, bring on the clones!

I want to mention first off M.A.R. Barker's Empire of the Petal. The world of Tekumel first published by TSR in 1975 and using an adaptation of the 0e ruleset. Tekumel is a non-western fantasy world and is much beloved of its fans. If you're looking for something not derived from Tolkien and Howard, this is the game for you! A reprint is available at: Tita's House of Games

The Basic Fantasy RPG was probably the first fan reaction to 3.0, if my internal timeline is correct. This is a wonderful product and I can't recommend it enough. It is essentially a B/X clone that is completely free; print copies are sold on Lulu at cost. There are a lot of add-ons for the game that are fan-produced and available for download in pdf and Open Office formats. Please check them out at: Basic Fantasy Roleplaying

One of the first professional responses to 3.0 was Castles and Crusades by Troll Lord Games. Using the OGL the Trolls created a stripped down fantasy game reminiscent of first edition and it is a great game in its own right. Ascending AC and a version of BAB is used. This game plays like D&D lite. I also enjoy that weapons have abilities reminiscent of the AC modifiers tables of 1e but with out a huge chart. For instance, a bec de corbin "receives a +2 when used against chain, plate and scale armors." Another thing that struck me was that the original printings were the same size as the 1e PHB. They also have the distinction of working with Gary Gygax in an attempt to get Castle Greyhawk (as Castle Zagyg) published before Gary died. Check them out at: Troll Lord Games

Kenzer Company's Hackmaster (fourth edition!) was an officially licensed game that used the 1e/2e core system. It was, in many respects, 1e with some 2e things (kits, wild magic, splat books) tacked on. There was even an inkling of 2.5 with their STP (Skills-Talents-Proficiencies) system that allowed some characterization of classes. As a result of the licensing agreement with WotC, KCo had to use a lot of parody in their language. Ignore that, though, and the core system is sound. WotC did not renew the license prior to the release of 4e. Hackmaster lives on in its fifth (actually 2nd) edition but the core mechanics are drastically different. However, it is worth checking out and they are offering the stripped down "basic" book as a FREE pdf (download here). They can be found at: Kenzer Company

Goblinoid Games offers the Labyrinth Lord game, another company that used the OGL to produce an older-style RPG. This is essentially a B/X emulator and is available in print at Lulu and also as a free pdf download (sans artwork). They offer the Advanced Edition Companion to make the game a bit more like AD&D. They also offer Mutant Future (a Gamma World clone) and own the licenses to Timemaster and Starships and Spacemen (in print again!). Their web site is: Goblinoid Games

Swords and Wizardry is another B/X style game and is currenty published by Frog God Games. These are the guys that produced Rappan Athuk and it is another great game. The Whitebox edition takes it back down to 0e if that's your thing. Their web site is: Frog God Games

Dark Dungeons is a another retro-clone, but this one uses BECMI as its reference point. The title is a tongue-in-cheek reference to the horrid Jack T. Chick religious diatribe, Dark Dungeons. In fact, the exanple character that is used throughout the work is Black Leaf, the character who dies in the first panel of the tract. It's always good to have a sense of humor about these things. It is available in pdf form for free and in print for a nominal fee from Lulu. The web site is: Gratis Games

Johnathan Becker's B/X Companion is not a true clone; rather, it is an extension of the B/X game. The public was promised a Companion book to take characters past 14th level when B/X was published, but the rebranding to BECMI meant that the world would never see it...until now. Becker extrapolated what might have been and this is a nice addition for you if prefer the Moldvey/Cook rules. the cover is obviously a homage to the original Erol Otus covers. It is no longer available in print but is available as a pdf at RPGNow. Becker recently released the B/X Adventurer that adds some new classes and magic to the game most notably gnomes, centaurs, and witches (among others). Running Beagle Games is found at: B/X Blackrazor

Finally, we come to the end....and OSRIC. I give these guys a lot of grief, I admit that readily. However, unlike some of the other clones that stay true to their source, this version is not what it purports to be. True, it is AD&D  as it was played in the 1980s; but just because we didn't play with weapon factors, psionics, monks, etc., doesn't mean they're not a part of AD&D. Even Goblinoid Game's Advanced Edition Companion adds the caveat "as it was played." That said, this is a well done work. Even if I disagree with Stuart Marshall's choices, this is a outstanding product. Everything one needs to play something close to AD&D (yes, yes, I can't let it go!) in one beautiful tome with art from James Halloway. It's only $26, so if the $100+ pricetag of the 1e reprints is too much, go here. The web site is: Black Blade Publishing

And that's it! Woo-hoo, finally through. Break out the Faygo! Tomorrow, gentle readers, I shall examine some of my favorite forums!

N is for Non-Lethal Combat

And everybody was Kung Fu fighting....

Non-Lethal Combat. The more I look at rules in AD&D, the more I realize that figuring out how an attack of opportunity in 3.5 operates is really nothing! The adjudication by the guidelines in the AD&D DMG is a tad convoluted. True, a PC's base attack can be calculated ahead of time, but the use of the charts and tables to make the determination is still a bit much.

 

Appendix Q in Unearthed Arcana provides a quicker alternative. Method I is simpler and is good enough for those times when it happens out of the blue. Method II is a more streamlined version of the DMG system; again, it's quicker and easier to handle.

 

Of course, the question is, why use Non-Lethal Combat at all? What if the players want to capture someone? That's the obvious reason. Note also that humanoids can use NLC as well. That's not farfetched, either, nor is it not a mere cop-out to avoid killing characters. How do you think the hobgoblins in B2 captured the men-at-arms and the merchant? The bugbears in the same module have slaves as well. I'm pretty sure they didn't stab and slice them to unconsciousness!

 

I am reminded of some Star Fleet Battles players I ran into in the 1980s. (SFB was still in the Commander's Edition at this stage.) They argued that, until the General War breaks out, Federation players should always use Non-Lethal Combat. In SFB terms, this is a combat style that focus on engines and command centers of a ship, disabling its ability to fight while minimizing casualties to the crew. "This is in keeping with the highest standards of Star Fleet and the Federation!" 

 

 

And maybe it's in keeping with the highest standards of the Free Peoples of Goodness and Weal. I don't think we should be emulating "murder hobos" (who coined that term, anyway?). Watch Unforgiven sometime and think about the lifestyle of the average adventurer in the context of that movie.

 

Until tomorrow, gentle readers, when we detour from AD&D from SWORDS & WIZARDRY APPRECIATION DAY!

 

 

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.

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.

 

 

A: Advanced Dungeons and Dragons

The iconic face of AD&D

Well, the A-to-Z Challenge is now upon us. For my theme this year, I am going with Advanced Dungeons and Dragons: no 2e, no 3e, no Pathfinder, no OSRIC, no bloody d20. AD&D. The Original. The game of my pre-teen and teen-aged years.
 
I have slowly become disillusioned with the OSR movement (that's "Old School Renaissance" for those keeping score) over the past few years. In my opinion, for whatever that's worth, it seems to have become a money grab in many ways. I say this for several reasons.
 
First, OSRIC is not really the system reference document that it claims. Really, OSRIC is merely the authors's vision of what AD&D is; it is not truly AD&D. Oh, the authors will say that there were things omitted because it's not a mathematical formula that could not be replicated, but in reality the things that were changed or omitted are those that the authors did not like or use. For instance, weapon modifiers vs. AC. How about psionics? What about the monk? Oh, wait, Gary canned the monk in Oriental Adventures. That might be true, but only after Oriental Adventures was published; where is the OSRIC OA?
 
Second, how many different retro-clones do we need? I mean, really! In the preface to the DMG, Gary wrote:


Returning again to the framework aspect of  ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, what is aimed at is a "universe" into which similar campaigns and parallel worlds can be placed. With certain uniformity of systems and "laws", players will be able to move from one campaign to another and know at least the elemental principles which govern the new milieu, for all milieux [sic] will have certain (but not necessarily the same) laws in common.


That's pretty straightforward. And that is my underlying issue with clones like OSRIC: what if I do want the monk or the bard and psionics? Who are these people to decide what is or isn't part of the genre? "What outrageousness! What insolence! What arrogance!"

The very face of royal outage!

 

This is not to say that I find all of the clones to be a pure money grab. Take, for instance, the Basic Fantasy system. It's completely free and is a true labor of love for those involved. I regularly mine it for ideas. It is a Basic/Expert tool kit where one can decide what one wants to play through add-ons and modules.

 

"So, Tony," I hear you ask, "what is your vision of AD&D?" Well, I'm pretty much a Core + UA kind of guy myself. Yes, I'm one of those DM's who have no problems with the cavalier or barbarian, and I find the acrobat is fun. The new armor and magic items all add to the game. And, yes, I am one of those DM's that use weapon modifiers for AC. It's not hard, people! Just use the PC sheet and total all of your pluses ahead of time in the boxes for AC. then all the DM has to say is, "Roll and add modifiers vs. AC 2," and it's already done. It just takes some organization.

 

Am I a rules lawyer? Do I play completely BtB ("by the book")? Of course not! I am constantly fiddling with imitative in an attempt to make it better, adapting articles and suggestions from old Dragon magazines, forum posts, Hackmaster,  my 30+ experience as a gamer, etc. (Incidentally, might I suggest DM Prata's truly awesome ADDICT document for a better understanding of the AD&D initiative system and how it is supposed to work?) I add classes and spells from the same sources. I tinker. That is part of my job and purview as a DM at the table. However, I do not presume to cut and paste and rewrite Gary's work and have the audacity to say that this is a true rendering of the original.

 

Well, that's enough grandstanding for today. Until tomorrow, gentle readers!

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... ;)