New Classes from Dragon Magazine
Shawn M. Witzki
>Duelist
>Healer
>Anti-Paladin + other paladins (Illrigger, etc.)
>Scout
>Beserker
>Improved Monk
Archer
Improved Bard (superceded by AD&D2 bard)
>Scribe -+
>Smith |- truely NPC classes
>Alchemist -+
Mariner
Death Master
Cloistered Cleric
Sentinel
Charlatan
Hedge Wizard
--
*** Shawn M. Witzki *** CS grad student *** swi...@cs.indiana.edu ***
"'Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation' yields falsehood
when preceded by its quotation." -- W.V.O. Quine
Allan Longley
Info gathering time. What are the classes that have appeared in Dragon
magazine that have NOT made it into a text. Off the top of my head:
Duelist
Healer
Anti-Paladin + other paladins (Illrigger, etc.)
Scout
Beserker
Improved Monk
Scribe -+
Smith |- truely NPC classes
Alchemist -+
Ninja -+__ actaully in Oriental Adverntures.
Samarji -+
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allan Longley, University of Waterloo, Department of Chemical Engineering
e-mail: alon...@cape.uwaterloo.ca
voice: (519) 885-1211 Compilation time
home: (519) 746-1498
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
James J Davis
>Info gathering time. What are the classes that have appeared in Dragon
>magazine that have NOT made it into a text. Off the top of my head:
In dragon magazine, they actually listed them in a terse list. I can
try to get it for you. If you want another class to add to your list
of NPCs likely to stay NPCs, I would advise you to add the cloistered
cleric. :)
-james
Mars, The Bringer of War
Mars
James J Davis
a similar question, and the letters section contained this list (the numbers
are issue numbers for those trying to find them too!). I will comment on some
of these that I have experience with:
Alchemist: 2, 45, 49, 130
- most of these were functional, I recommend the one from 130 becuase it's
closest to current rules.
Anti-paladin: 39
- if you reverse a paladin on your own, you'll get basically the same results.
Archer: 45, 66
- weapon specialization leaves the class largely pointless. The bonus curve
got a bit too nasty at high level. However, you got to have bonues at long
and medium ranges, where the bow should still be useful.
Archer-ranger: 45
- as above, don't let a player try to convince you to let him have weapon
specialization in addition to his archer bonuses. (I've seen a GM allow
this, and he proceeded to complain about the PCs being too powerful...)
Assassin: 22, 64, 96
Astrologer: 45
- a general note about this and any future-telling characters is that they
often make bad PCs becuase the GM isn't aware of the future, since (at least
good ones) doesn't set the future in stone.
Bandit: 63
- this one is a lot of fun, but I wonder if it's not just a fighter/rogue.
Barbarian: 63, 65, 67, 72, 148
- lots of articles about playing barbaric characters, good whether you actually
allow the class or not.
Bard, variant: 56
- my favorite version in outlay, I don't remember if it was balanced or not.
Battle dancer: 159
Beastmaster: 119
Beserker: 3, 133
- beserk fury is not to my knowledge generally available, so this seems cool
enough. The version from 133 is more detailed, the one from 3 relates
beserkers to were creatures, if I remember correctly.
Cavalier: 65, 72, 125, 148
- issue 72 details the sick version of the cavalier, if you though the UA
version was bad, check this out. You'll be sick to the stomach...
Cavalier, elven: 114
- also more powerful than the UA cavalier, becuase he gets damage bonuses
that just never stop, literally, making high level play highly imbalanced.
Charlatan: 120
- amusing, but not much of a PC for reasons of lack of heroic intent. Perhaps
in a non-heroic game.
Cleric, barbarian: 109
- not too bad, but needs work with it's exp table. I recall about 4 million
experience points to get from 10th to 11th level, constituting the widest
level breadth ever published by TSR. Scale the exp table to fit the game.
Cleric, cloistered: 68
- definte NPC material, as PCs are not likely wanting to be cloistered.
Death master: 76
- NPC material in any but the nastiest games. Ultimately turns CE irregardless
of original alignment. If you play one as a PC, don't tell the author.
Dreamer: 132
- very intresting, but I never employed one. Also has the problem of anyone
telling the future.
Entertainer: 69
- neato keen, but I would not allow on to multiclass at all.
Escrimador: 124
Geisya: 121
- not too many players will want to play one, since she virtually cannot do
combat. Also, dispels the myth that geisya were prostitutes.
Genin: 121
- one of the few well done ninja from TSR. I found the one from OA irrational,
and the one from early Dragon magazines too powerful (see below).
Gypsy: 59, 93
Halfling guardian: 129
- this would be good PC material. I liked the concept, and it's not too
powerful.
Healer: 3
- viable, but you have to change the exp table to something more in line with
current rules (2nd level was high, 5000 exp, but the high levels were only
100,000 each, less than half of thief).
Hopeless: 96
- a joke, unless you *really* like being totally helpless.
Huntsman (anti-ranger): 102
Idiot: 3
Incantatrix: 90
- one of my personal favorites, the mystic nature of the class helps add
to her (most are female) intrigue. The one I play has never been positively
identified as incantatrix. They are focused against magic and undead.
Jester: 60, 65
- comical, but a bit too powerful in strange ways. Just never let one have
a wand of wonder, or it becomes a wand of anything.
Jock: 72
- a joke, but I'd like to have a hockeystick +5, holy terror, to control the
neighborhood kids. :)
Magic-users, variant: 17
Mariner: 107
- a worthwhile roleplaying opportunity. His skills are many, but a mariner
player will be a little upset if he never gets to use his ship-wise skills
in the game.
Merchant: 62, 136
Monk, variant: 53
- more balance with the other classes than the 1st Ed or OA monk.
Montebank: 65
Mystic: 65
Ninja: 16, 30, 121
- the ninja from 16/30 are *too powerful* to be a PC. Basically, they take
the place of any non-spellcaster. Thier power seems to be based on the
popular myth that ninja are un-beatable.
Oracle: 53
- has problems with telling the future.
Paladins, variant: 106
- many interesting ideas here, but you kinda have to have a strong-alignment
world for these to work. More or less, this makes one paladin for each
alignment, for a total of 9 paladins.
Politician: 74
Psionicist: 78
- too powerful, and supersceded by 2nd Ed rules. Further, I don't like the
idea of psionics in a fanasy game.
Ranger, variant: 106
Samurai: 3, 49
- the one from 49 is silly, but playable. It is supposedly based on 'a
realistic intreptation of Hapkido.' Hapkido is Korean, so how it applies
to a samurai baffles me. And I don't think real-world practicioners become
psionic, or get the death hand either. And, the weapons are not katana,
wakizashi and *nunchaku*. I babble, the point is take this one at face
value and label it something else other than samurai.
Savant: 65, 140
- also has problems with telling the future.
Scribe: 3, 62
Sentinel: 89
- this is a neat class, gives fighters a little special abilitiy (awareness)
which lets them be decent guards. By not letting a sentinel specialize in
a weapon, he doesn't remove fighters from play either.
Shaman, humanoid: 141
- hehehe. Mostly NPC material, but I'd play one.
Smith: 157
Sumotori (two): 157
Thief-acrobat: 65, 69
Timelord: 65
- kinda inconsistant with the way magic looks in D+D, best left out of the
game. They are 'mutants', and belong in MSH, not D+D.
Witch: 3, 5, 20, 43, 114
- the first few articles present the witch as a monster. 114 presents her
as a NPC, which means it's used as a PC. It's a neat concept, but much too
powerful. At high (10-12th) levels, she gains an area of effect no save no
HD limit death spell that damages no treasure/magic items. Tone her down
if you want to use the neat ideas that are presented.
There, that's a little about the classes out there.
-james
Jason Stephenson
G.R. Roberts
Merchant
Savant
BCNU
Gareth Roberts
Chris B. Spencer
in progress (I have Mage in the adventure, but I find MU's boring to play, and
as a result, I don't play them very well). I decided that the character's class
would be a Bard and that his Race would be Elf. Horrors! According to the PHB2,
Elves cannot be Bards! Humans (obviously) and Half-Elves can be Bards, but not
Elves.
This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Elves enjoy music, poetry, humour,
frolicking, jewelry, the arts, and swordplay, and the Fair Folk usually have
above average Charismas. Sounds to me like they would make ideal Bards. In
fact, I have decided to make the PC an Elven Bard anyway (I'll decide later if
I will point this descrepancy out to my trusting DM).
Am I missing the boat somewhere? Or does this rule not make any sense to anyone
else either? Whenever I DM, I usually disregard such things
and allow my players to create characters they want, rather than have them play
characters they don't want; besides, if the characters are well-played, the game
can be most interesting.
Comments?
Chris
Coniving Player and Rebellious DM
Barbara Haddad
> In article <1993Feb19....@Virginia.EDU>, ja...@Virginia.EDU ("Mars, T
You're forgetting these:
original ranger
original druid
original monk
original assassin
(They all appeared in the first few Dragons), not to mention:
the jester
archer-ranger
and 4 varieties of bard
------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Haddad - mel...@shakala.com
Shakala BBS (ClanZen Radio Network) Sunnyvale, CA +1-408-734-2289
Guillaume Godbout
In a previous article, ci...@tbird1.larc.nasa.gov (Debbie Taylor) says:
>
>So I say go for it, afterall, how many people do you know who change the rule
>and/or add house rules when they find that the "official" AD&D rules just
>don't fit their style of play ... and remember ... it's only a game folks!
>You're supposed to have fun ... not get bogged down in rules & regulations.
>
Hurray! Here is someone who is talking sense! It is a GAME! So have fun
and do your best with what you got and/or create. If it does not work,
change it!
--
Grey Wolf
Debbie Taylor
I personally agree, Elves do make the best bards. In my last campaign my
favorite character was an elven bard. I saw no real reason to exclude elves
from this class and as DM I had the last word so Testor Treetop was born. He
was great fun, caused lots of trouble for me (but don't worry he had plenty
of his own to deal with) and we had a great campaign that ran for over two
years. Testor has since "made his fortune", owns his own tavern in Suzail
and has an elven princess as his mistress. He's retired from active play
and is an NPC in my game.
So I say go for it, afterall, how many people do you know who change the rule
and/or add house rules when they find that the "official" AD&D rules just
don't fit their style of play ... and remember ... it's only a game folks!
You're supposed to have fun ... not get bogged down in rules & regulations.
Enjoy!
#################################################################
# #
# There's nothing wrong with a good delusion!" - Quark, DS9 #
# #
# Debbie Taylor: ci...@tbird1.larc.nasa.gov #
#################################################################
Tim Spock Larson
The Complete Bard's Handbook remedies this error. Any demihuman race can
become a bard, of some sort, by taking the appropriate kit. Since all the
demihuman races have a strong history in some sort of performing art, it
DOES make sense they should be able to be bards. I love playing bards now
that the CBH has come out.
RedSwordTarga
>So I say go for it, afterall, how many people do you know who change the rule
>and/or add house rules when they find that the "official" AD&D rules just
>don't fit their style of play ... and remember ... it's only a game folks!
>You're supposed to have fun ... not get bogged down in rules & regulations.
Actually, they came out with special bard types for each demihuman race
in the Complete Bard's Guide. This one was almost as useful as the
fighters guide.
Axly
patrick midden
>would be a Bard and that his Race would be Elf. Horrors! According to the PHB2,
>Elves cannot be Bards! Humans (obviously) and Half-Elves can be Bards, but not
>Elves.
>
>This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Elves enjoy music, poetry, humour,
>frolicking, jewelry, the arts, and swordplay, and the Fair Folk usually have
It makes perfect sense to me. If I may reference Tolkien, remember the House
of Elrond. There were Elven Bards all over the place, but they kept themselves
hidden. Elves are a very secretive race. They tend not to publicize(sp?)
their histories. And since no other race is(Forgive me) as worthy of song
as is the Elven society, why would an Elven Bard sing about the other less
fortunate lowly races??
So, I believe, the reason the PH prohibits Elven Bards is NOT becuase there
are none, but becuase there are no adventuring Elven Bards. They all
tend to stay at home and sing for their own royalty etc.
Besides, if they were seen in public as Bards they would be expected to,
(gasp) perform for the likes of Humans and hobbits, and yes, any Dwarf that
could stand to sit (heheh) through an Elvish song. Why would an Elf want
to make him/herself seem subservient to anyone??
So, I guess what I am trying to say, is that even if there was an Elven Bard
in a Bar outside of a completely Elvish society, you would never know it. And
playing a Bard that sits around in an Elven city and does nothing but perform
would be pretty boring Role playing!
Flame away.
Pat
Debbie Taylor
The Complete Bards Handbook was not out when the player wanted to run his
elven bard ... so we just made it up as we went a long.
Debbie
*******************************************************************************
* For each step that I take, each moment I cherish | *
* For each mem'ry I consider mine | Debbie Taylor *
* A devouring fire burns hellwrought and careless | *
* And I'm but a number in time |ci...@tbird1.larc.nasa.gov*
* - Steve Spencer SLC, UTAH | *
*******************************************************************************
]dne Brunborg
> In article <1993Mar1.0...@news.nd.edu>, pmi...@moe.helios.nd.edu
> (patrick midden) says:
> >
> >So, I believe, the reason the PH prohibits Elven Bards is NOT becuase there
> >are none, but becuase there are no adventuring Elven Bards. They all
> >tend to stay at home and sing for their own royalty etc.
>
> hear them over the din of battle. Bards should be baritones or basses. :)
Then why cannot dwarves be bards? I'm certain that a lot of the dwarves are
barytones and basses :-)
>
> (Sorry for those of you who don't catch the vocal jibe.)
>
> Same thing goes for Halflings. :)
> ______
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ + +
+ ++brun...@alkymi.unit.no+ + "Yeah, alright! I've got something to say: +
+ + It's better to burn out, than fade away!" +
+ ++brun...@solan.unit.no++ + +
+ + (Def Leppard: "Rock of Ages", Pyromania 1983) +
+ - Aadne Brunborg - + +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Berwald R
>In article <93061.105...@psuvm.psu.edu>, Brian Panulla, MooCow <BJP...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>Then why cannot dwarves be bards? I'm certain that a lot of the dwarves are
>barytones and basses :-)
This one is simple: 1) Bards use magic (Eeeeeck!)
2) Bards can not fight good enough
(What? You killed the orc quickly? Slowly....)
Richard :-)
--
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Richard Berwald Uilenstede 138-989 1183 AN Amstelveen |
| e-mail: ric...@cs.vu.nl tel: +31 20 6457636 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
Aaron Ray Clements
one of the *officially* published NPC's included with that set is indeed
an elven bard (who also happens to be chaotic good . . .)
I so very much wish TSR would come up with some product consistency . . .
aaron
J. G. Delisle
>brun...@alkymi.unit.no (]dne Brunborg) writes:
>
>>In article <93061.105...@psuvm.psu.edu>, Brian Panulla, MooCow <BJP...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>>Then why cannot dwarves be bards? I'm certain that a lot of the dwarves are
>>barytones and basses :-)
>
>This one is simple: 1) Bards use magic (Eeeeeck!)
> 2) Bards can not fight good enough
> (What? You killed the orc quickly? Slowly....)
1. In the Complete Bard's handbook, there is a dwarven bard kit (the
Chanter). Instead of magical spells, the Chanter learns "anti-spells"; for
example, a dwarf who finds a spell and learns it can "cast" the negation of
that spell (ie, negating a magic missile, for example).
2. Dwarven bards (either Chanters or Skalds) can multiclass with
fighter.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| From the terminal of Joe Delisle | Don't open your eyes, take it from me |
| jdel...@loyola.edu (preferred) | I have found, you can find, happiness |
| jdel...@cs.loyola.edu | in slavery. -- NIN |
| "I know what frightens you, worm" |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
RedSwordTarga
Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but that is consistent with their
Bard's Handbook, which describes how an elf can be a bard.
Axly
The Always Fanatical: Patrick Ellis
the.....
BEURACRAT....
pat Ellis
P.s. I think it was from an april issue, does that explain it??????
Aaron Ray Clements
>Axly
It's not consistent with their Bard's Handbook, actually, 'cause the
elven bards in the handbook come under specific kits; in Rogues Gallery,
TSR is mostly very careful to clearly note the use of a kit. In this
case, they did not make the character an elven minstrel, but a full bard.
Also, the alignment of the character is inconsistent in all ways with the
published rules.
aaron
mathew
The rules are really guidelines. If you don't like them, break them. If you
don't like the way someone breaks them, fix them.
If as a referee your reality is 100% internally consistent, I for one would
like to nominate you for a position in Deities and Demigods II.
mathew
[ Suppose I'd better prepare for a visit from the AD&D Rule Police... ]
HC61000
Chris Hare
Mezo
and perform. The Bard Vlass is something entirely differnt. Read your
Celtic History, and Nordic History...Learn about the Skald and Bard.
Galen of Tal'rhea.
Michael Wynblatt
Dragon Magazine.
Michael
Scott Compton
^^^^^^^^^^
If strictly playing by the rules, I still would allow elves to be
bards since their half-elven counterparts can. I'm sure that
there will be many people who think that the issue's front cover
is a half-elf, rather than elvish of pure blood. I say screw
the rule and let your elves be bards if you so desire.
This brings up another good point: Hobbits (um, er, or that is
Halfings). Since the great Prof. Tolkien protrays "Hobbits"
as being shire-dwelling and near forests where "bards" exist
(Tom Bombadil of course), I would also allow your halflings
to play Bards, Rangers, and Druids.
It is silly that these limitations exist, expecially since there
are no solid reasons why. I think the rules were a bad carry-
over to 2nd edition, and when 3rd edition comes out some day,
they will probably have a rule that says something to the effect:
"The Dungeon Master should weigh the pros and cons when letting
his/her players create a character. The character's background
should tie-in with the profession the player chooses. As long
as the teaching availability exists, the player may choose any
class he or she desires."
Not only would a rule like this give more character-types,
it would also allow for more varience, interesting plots and
situations, as well as REALISM. Just change the rules. Your
are the DM-- you have the power to do so.
Scotty the Sagemaster
--
%|\====/|%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|\====/|%
%| \==/ |% MOTES: Manual Of The Eternal Sages 2nd Edition %| \==/ |%
%| /==\ |% is now available! GAL...@LELAND.STANFORD.EDU %| /==\ |%
%|/====\|%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|/====\|%
--
%|\====/|%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|\====/|%
%| \==/ |% MOTES: Manual Of The Eternal Sages 2nd Edition %| \==/ |%
%| /==\ |% is now available! GAL...@LELAND.STANFORD.EDU %| /==\ |%
%|/====\|%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|/====\|%
mcsb...@dct.ac.uk
> I was recently rolling up a new character in order to join an adventure already
> in progress (I have Mage in the adventure, but I find MU's boring to play, and
> as a result, I don't play them very well). I decided that the character's class
> would be a Bard and that his Race would be Elf. Horrors! According to the PHB2,
> Elves cannot be Bards! Humans (obviously) and Half-Elves can be Bards, but not
> Elves.
>
> This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Elves enjoy music, poetry, humour,
> frolicking, jewelry, the arts, and swordplay, and the Fair Folk usually have
> above average Charismas. Sounds to me like they would make ideal Bards. In
> fact, I have decided to make the PC an Elven Bard anyway (I'll decide later if
> I will point this descrepancy out to my trusting DM).
>
> Am I missing the boat somewhere? Or does this rule not make any sense to anyone
The Issue that prevents Elves from becoming BARDS is play
balance . If Elves could become BARDS then they would be MUCH more popular
than Half Elf Bards , because Elves have more special abilities than H-elves
and more people like elves anyway .The Demihuman races must be limited to
ensure all races are equal . Now If your GM say replaced the thief class
with the bard class then that would be more acceptable from a play balance
point of view .
[stuff deleted]
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Janet : mcsb...@uk.ac.dct | Random executions will continue until
Internet : mcsb...@dct.ac.uk | Morale Improves .......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wil...@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
> balance . If Elves could become BARDS then they would be MUCH more popular
> than Half Elf Bards , because Elves have more special abilities than H-elves
> and more people like elves anyway .The Demihuman races must be limited to
> ensure all races are equal . Now If your GM say replaced the thief class
> with the bard class then that would be more acceptable from a play balance
> point of view .
I would suggest restricting the Elves level and not the Half-Elves. This
would make the class playable and limit the elven race. I kinda agree with
his statments on why they should be able to be bards... and if it does
make for playing fun ... Why not?
Zachary S Tseng
> In article <19...@bcars664.bnr.ca>, cspe...@bnr.ca (Chris B. Spencer) writes:
> > I was recently rolling up a new character in order to join an adventure already
> > in progress (I have Mage in the adventure, but I find MU's boring to play, and
> > as a result, I don't play them very well). I decided that the character's class
> > would be a Bard and that his Race would be Elf. Horrors! According to the PHB2,
> > Elves cannot be Bards! Humans (obviously) and Half-Elves can be Bards, but not
> > Elves.
> >
> > This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Elves enjoy music, poetry, humour,
> > frolicking, jewelry, the arts, and swordplay, and the Fair Folk usually have
> > above average Charismas. Sounds to me like they would make ideal Bards. In
> > fact, I have decided to make the PC an Elven Bard anyway (I'll decide later if
> > I will point this descrepancy out to my trusting DM).
> >
> > Am I missing the boat somewhere? Or does this rule not make any sense to anyone
>
> The Issue that prevents Elves from becoming BARDS is play
> balance . If Elves could become BARDS then they would be MUCH more popular
> than Half Elf Bards , because Elves have more special abilities than H-elves
> and more people like elves anyway .The Demihuman races must be limited to
> ensure all races are equal . Now If your GM say replaced the thief class
> with the bard class then that would be more acceptable from a play balance
> point of view .
>
> [stuff deleted]
Ah, but elves CAN be bards, it is stated in the complete book of elves (I think
the paragraph concerned is somewhere in the middle of elven character kits,
where the book mentions minstrel(?) kit from the Bard book as an allowable
elven kit.)
Just my $0.02
*******************************************************************************
* Zachary S. Tseng * ZST - Admirer of Steffi, Henrietta, Shannon, *
* * Summer, and Manon. *
* Graduate Student, * *
* Penn State University * But who the heck are they?? *
*******************************************************************************
* My ignorance is none of your business. *
* *
* "It was like that when I got here!" - Homer Simpson, The Simpsons *
* _MY_ signature file #2 - get your hands off it, NOW! *
*******************************************************************************
Shadow
>Ah, but elves CAN be bards, it is stated in the complete book of elves (I think
>the paragraph concerned is somewhere in the middle of elven character kits,
>where the book mentions minstrel(?) kit from the Bard book as an allowable
>elven kit.)
Not only can they be Bards, but they can be multiclassed Bards.(as can almost
all the other races.(even Dwarves!!!)) Of course, Half-Elves still have many
more conbinations for multi-classing than any other race, which is their racial
advantage as a matter of fact.(or it is supposed to be anyway)
Shadow
PS I recommend the Bard's Book for anyone who likes the original Bard class but
wants more variety.(although, the Bard class becomes VERY powerful with this new
book)