Thoughts on Prestige Classes and Other 3isms in Classic D&D

I'm not sure if I've touched on this in the blog or not - maybe back in one of the first posts. I've played D&D in one form or another since '81.  Moldvay ==> 1E ==> 2e from middle school through college.  After that I no longer played tabletop, having no regular group to get together with.  I continued to get my RPG fix via video games, both PC and console, playing "real" D&D games when I could, and eventually played and enjoyed Bioware's Neverwinter Nights I & II. Those two games in particular were based on the 3.0 and 3.5 rulesets - my only experience with either one.  When my then-too-young daughters expressed interest in playing then after seeing me do so, I took the opportunity to introduce them to the tabletop RPG - I mean, who among us would miss that window?

Seeing that 3.5 was too complex, I thought back on my own gaming history and without hesitation realized I wanted the old box set I started with so many years ago as the tool to teach them the game.  A bit of internet research led my to RPGNow and PDFs of the Mentzer basic and expert sets - Moldvay/Cook was not available. That was, what, almost 5 years ago now, and one of the girls still plays.  A weekly BEMCI game I run, and she's recently started playing 4E with friends from school. Turns out one of the teachers runs a 4E game club and the kids are also playing it on their own.  Awesome.

So where is all this going, you ask?  Well, here's the thing. I've found myself firmly settled into the Classic family of D&D - whether B/X, BECMI/RC, Labyrinth Lord or whatever.  For the level of rules crunch I enjoy and have time to commit to memory, those games hit the sweet spot.  But to be honest, if I was a teenager again and had the all but unlimited time to game I did back then, I'd be all over 3.5, or rather Pathfinder now.  All those options and reams of fluff would be heavenly.  I always loved (and still do) reading game books nearly as much as fantasy fiction. It's a bit of a shame that the kids are playing 4E rather than Pathfinder since it would give me an excuse to blow the $35 on a Pathfinder Beginner Box.  I'd love to read it.  I had bought a 4E Starter Box out of curiosity over Essentials - I gave her that to use since I never will, having read through it already.

Damn it - get to the point man! Prestige classes? 3isms?

Ok, ok... Despite not wanting the full level of crunch that 3.5 has to offer, it still have plenty of offer my game.  Skills and feats, races and classes, monsters and magic: these can all be mined for ideas that I can simplify and use in my game. One idea in particular, though, really interests me - prestige classes.  As far back as 2008 was was looking at them and wondering how to incorporate them.  Not just 3.5 style classes, but 2E kits and other "advanced" options for non-standard class choices.  A year ago, the ever prolific map-maker Dyson Logos - who shares scads of other great content on his blog beyond the maps - did a series of  posts on "Glantri-style" prestige classes. The Glantri Gazeteer for Mystara introduced a system of specialized sub-classes - specifically schools of magic - and Dyson took that concept and showed how you could easily use to to introduce any prestige classes you wanted into your game in an amazingly elegant fashion.

I want to use this as the basis for adding some things back into my game.  The RC had a wonky system for Paladins, Knights, Avengers and Druids - being something you could switch to after 9th level.  Interesting idea, but too limiting for my taste.  Cue Glantri as a way to use some of that without creating full class progressions for them.

I can see using the system to add in paladins and knights as specific orders or organizations for fighters or clerics, schools or magic as originally used in Glantri and many other things. Some I'd like to do eventually:

• Assassins - not just for thieves either
• Martial arts styles - no full monk/mystic needed
• Bladesingers or Dwarven Defenders - a little demi-human specialization

Let's show the much-maligned Prestige Class some love, shall we?  It's not that bad an idea old-schoolers!

The Pellet Crossbow, or Stonebow

This past summer, while visiting Cleveland, I was able to take the time to visit the fantastic Cleveland Museum of Art, and tour it's utterly amazing Armor Court.  While full of an impressive array of arms and armor, one piece struck me in particular - an odd, double-stringed crossbow labeled as a "pellet crossbow."

Invented in the late 14th century, and reaching the height of popularity by the late 1700s, the pellet crossbow, also known as a stonebow, was used primarily for hunting or target practice.It is a light crossbow, with a double string holding a pouch or pocket.  The stonebow fires small stones, clay pellets or steel bullets, comparable to sling ammunition.

In D&D terms, it is an idea weapon to introduce to a campaign to add to the cleric's list of available weapons.  With greater range than a simple sling, the pellet crossbow increases the cleric's effectiveness in missile combat situations.  Below, I've statted out this fascinating weapon for OD&D/Swords & Wizardry and Classic D&D/Labyrinth Lord, as well as a more detailed work-up for the Weapons Mastery system of Rules Cyclopedia/Dark Dungeons.

OD&D, Swords & Wizardry: WhiteBox
Crossbow, Pellet  Damage: 1d6-1   Rate of Fire: 1   Range: 50 ft.  Weight: 5 lb.  Cost: 20 gp
Pellets (20)  Weight: 1 lb.  Cost: 1 gp


B/X, BECMI, Labyrinth Lord
Crossbow, Pellet  Damage: 1d4+1  Rate of Fire: 1  Range: 60/120/180 Weight: 5 lb. Cost: 20 gp
Pellets, Crossbow (10)  Weight: 5 lbs. Cost: 1 gp


Rules Cyclopedia, Dark Dungeons
Crossbow, Pellet  Damage: 1d4+1   Rate of Fire: 1   Range: 50/100/150  Encumbrance: 50 cn  Cost: 40 gp  Notes: a,c,m,s,2H,M
Pellets, Crossbow (30)   Encumbrance: 5 cn  Cost: 1 gp
Level  Range        Damage    Defense    Special
BS     50/100/150   1d4+1     --         --
SK     50/100/150   1d6+2     M:-1AC/1   Stun(s/m)
EX     70/120/160   1d6+4     M:-2AC/2   Stun(s/m)
MS     70/120/160   P=2d4+4   M:-2AC/3   Stun(s/m)
                    S=1d8+4   
GM     80/130/160   P=2d6+4   M:-3AC/3   Stun(s/m)
(P=H)               S=1d10+4

TPK = New Beginnings

Begone foul demon!

For the past 5-6 months I have been running a game of Swords & Wizardry:WhiteBox for my kids and some friends.  Sadly, they made some poor decisions last night - their third session in Brave Halfling's fun little "Ruins of Ramat".  In general, the kids have done really well in their tactical decision making and have run when they needed to, to stay alive.  Last night, however, that all came to an end.  The tentacled demonic guardians (see right) proved to much and the party failed to escape.

In a way, this is a good thing, I think.  I started them out using the WB rules to simplify things since a couple of the players were newbies to tabletop RPGs.  My intention all along though, was to roll the campaign over to Classic D&D using the Rules Cyclopedia - my rules set of choice.  We'd discussed it recently and I was getting closer to doing some conversion work on their characters to start using the RC rules.  The TPk actually gives us a chance to start fresh and the kids have ideas for new characters they want to try anyway. At the same time, the discussion of PC choices and what type of game they want to play has allowed me to further develop my view of just what kind of game world Trevail really is and I have some grist for new ideas now.

A TPK isn't a bad thing necessarily - don't be afraid to use it for a new beginning and turn it into a win-win situation for the DM and PCs!