Player Character Classes- Classes in 2e were divided into archetypal groups. You had Warrior (fighter, ranger, and paladin), Wizard (mage, illusionist, and "other", meaning a specialized mage), Priest (cleric, druid, and another "other"), and Rogue (thief and bard). Each group shared many similarities like THAC0 (even typing that is annoying), saving throws and hit points. Occasionally there would be some naming confusion, like denoting something that belongs to fighters when it applies to all warrior types; this was usually from the equation of the group name with the exemplar of that group as interchangeable synonyms of each other.
- You might be able to make the case that 2e was defining character roles with its class groupings. Shuffle some of the classes around and you're pretty much there - throw ranger in with the rogues (where it fits better IMO) and bard with the clerics, and you've basically got Defenders, Controllers, Leaders, and Strikers. They don’t set out to purposefully do those jobs (fighters aren't sticky and are half-strikers, thieves have a striker ability no DM would let them use), but the groundwork is there and was probably there since the days of fighting-man and magic-user.
- Each class has ability score requirements. The basic classes (fighter, mage, cleric, and thief) have prerequisites of 9 STR, INT, WIS, or DEX respectively, while the others had more exacting requirements. Paladins needed a 17 or 18 Charisma, while rangers needed 13s or better in four different attributes.
- The book says all but the basic classes are optional. The book lies. Of them, only the specialist wizards and clerics are optional, only because (IIRC) they’re pretty ill-defined. We'll see.
- Characters with a 16 or better in their prime requisite ability scores (Strength for fighters, Intelligence for mages, etc.) gain 10% additional experience. If you are naturally better at your class than the rank and file - and, hence, your job is easier - you advance quicker in your class. There's some Darwinian, "jocks are better" undertones here.
Warriors: Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers (oh my!)
- It mentions that warriors get additional hit points for high CON, but doesn't mention exceptional Strength in any capacity. A footnote would have been good here, if for no other reason than to make the fighter feel better about the fact that they have one class ability.
- Warriors can make additional melee attacks as they rise in level. At level 7, they can make 3 attacks every 2 rounds. You may realize that this is somewhat problematic in the lack of half-attacks, and you would not be alone; what this means is that, on the first round, warriors make one attack, then two attacks the next round, then one attack the round after, so on and so forth. No, you can't make two attacks on the first round, and I'm pretty sure you can't "save" your two-attack-rounds for later. At level 13 they can make 2 attacks in a round and skip this stupidity.
- Fighters are the only class that can take weapon specialization. Rather than actually detail it in the fighter description, since no one else can take it, the book refers you to Chapter 5. Note that weapon specialization uses the optional weapon proficiency system, so DMs are well within their rights to keep fighters from ever being useful beyond walking sacks of hit points.
- In fact, being a fighter is viewed as a punishment. If you fuck up as a paladin or ranger (more later) you become a fighter. A fighter without weapon specialization, no less, so fighters in games without the optional proficiency rules can, at best, be on the same level as characters used to actually be good and fun to play.
- There are tables for fighter cohorts and followers. The only time any character in any game I played in or ran had a follower was in 3e. In this case, the fighter has to own land with some sort of impressive-sounding fortification built upon it to attract followers, and it flat-out says that a fighter can't do ANYTHING of note worthy to bring in the fodder until 9th level, at which point s/he becomes a household name.
- It occurs to me that the explanations of some of these rules may be a bit snarky. I must disclaim that I'm only embellishing a little. If there is one given, it's likely that my explanation is pretty close to that in the book, mostly because I'm lazy.
- Paladins. I'd like to think that this class was designed by some prophetic crone who had foreseen the creation of the Internet and the flame wars that would arise at the mention of this class. It's been said that Gygax made this class with the design goal that being lawful good was enough of a punishment to balance it out; this isn't true. Paladins have to be human, and that is their punishment.
- I could have sworn paladins were immune to fear. My mistake. They still get +2 to all saves, which is nice.
- Paladins gain a class ability that has no effect until they gain a specific magical item. Since getting any magical item is a crapshoot anyway, this is essentially a passive-aggressive way for a player to slowly wear away at the DM's patience as they constantly say things like, "Oh man, I can't wait 'til I get my holy sword!"
- They get a horse, too. Useful for those long dungeon crawls.
- At level 9, paladins can cast a spell (one, usually cure light wounds) like a 1st-level priest. To simulate this in real life, jump start your car with a AAA battery.
- Paladins don't have the same motivation to adventure as other characters. Paladins are in it for the greater good, the cosmic cause. You can see this in the drawbacks for the class; paladins pay their bills, plus a 10% income tax, then give all their shit away. In practice, this means the paladin takes a few gems from the dragon's hoard and lets the other members of his party divvy up his share, creating loot imbalances with his very presence.
- One of the neat workarounds of the 2e paladin is that they can actually get along with and even adventure alongside evil characters without too much fuss, provided the characters behave themselves in his/her presence. In 3e, paladins can't knowingly be associated with evil characters or they lose their powers; essentially, they have to willingly not use one of their defining class abilities, detect evil, in order to maintain plausible deniability. I recall this being something of a pain when some jackhole rolls up Stabby McStabbington III, contract killer and lifelong companion of Sir Derek Evilsbane.
- Rangers have three prime requisites, one of which
- The book doesn't list Aragorn or Legolas as ranger archetypes. Funny, that. Also doesn't list Drizzt Do'Urden, legendary canon sue of the Forgotten Realms that affected the ranger in this edition with the inclusion of dual-wielding. I didn't do a lot of dual-wielding in 2e, but I do remember setting myself to receive the charge of creatures many orders of magnitude greater than myself with naught but my awesome spear of badassitude (read: +2 spear).
- The ranger is the only class that can say, "Fuck you and your optional proficiency systems, I can track shit!"
- Rangers can be stealthy, but only in "natural surroundings", where you will spend approximately 10 minutes of game time per session on average. It doesn't actually define what "natural surroundings" are, though, so you might be able to make the case that they get their full bonuses in caves and caverns, which begs the question as to why no dwarf rangers.
- There's no real justification as to why rangers have to be good, nor what prevents them from keeping more treasure than they can carry beyond DM fiat.
- I'm sorry I used the phrase "DM fiat" while talking about 2e, when I never heard it until the days of 3e. I like it.
No comments:
Post a Comment