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!