Illusion(ists)

I was pondering a few things about 1st edition AD&D, among them the sub-class of Illusionist. Sub-classes are not a bad idea, in and of themselves, and could have been expanded on for greater flexibility in 2nd Edition, had Mr. Gygax been around for that. You can see the direction he was going in the Unearthed Arcana. So the pieces were in place in 1st edition and expanded on in 2nd edition. History tells the rest of that sordid tale. I am planning on expanding on this idea in Alternate Character Sets for OSRIC; beforehand, I believe an exploration of the concept is in order.

The four classes have endured the test of time, and are quite sturdy for the task to which they have been employed. Contemporary sword and sorcery literature had protagonists beating the crap out of someone (Conan), exploring the deepest mysteries of the arcane (Ged), and stealing treasure for glory and monetary gain (Grey Mouser). Clerics have few direct counterparts in genre literature, if any, but the germ can be seen in numerous Arthurian rounds and other Medieval depictions of holy knights in the crusades. The Grey Mouser had some magical training, but this was more of a plot device than a reflection of the character.

Four genre appropriate archetypes, then. How do the sub-classes fit into all of this? Looking back through the years, they actually don't seem to fit very well at all. As a container (in programming terms), classes and sub-classes aren't very effective. It would appear they were made to be extensible (again with the programming!), but little was done with that, and even the Unearthed Arcana rules switched Paladins over to the new Cavalier class, adding another grouping of classes with one sub-class, along with Cleric, Magic User and Thief. As a grouping or container system, then, classes and sub-classes were less than efficient. It was perhaps slightly easier to annotate magic items with who could use them, but there were few items that were restricted by class and needed to be indicated in this manner. And even so, using (F, P, R) is hardly more space consuming on the handful of items to which it applies than (F).

2nd Edition AD&D introduced the idea of spell schools and specialization. Which is all Illusionists were to begin with, really; a Magic-User without access to the general spells available to Magic Users. In fact, they only got first level Magic User spells as a seventh level spell selection, indicating that Illusionists are somehow inferior to Magic Users, or a lead up to real magic use. They didn't use a different form of magic, like Sorcerers or Warlocks in later editions. The only thing keeping them seperate is that they couldn't read each other's magic notes. Not a particularly good impetus to make them a sub-class, mechanically or descriptively. That their maximum spell level is seven also demonstrates they were inferior to magic users. Taking all this into account, they were a good mecanical implementation of a sub-class, in that they were sub-ordinate to the Magic-User class. Still, with the introduction in 1st edition of spell types, it seems relegating Illusionists to a sub-class is redundant.

However, the Fighter sub-classes don't seem quite as sub-ordinate. Paladins and Rangers both got spell use at higher levels, and had other abilities as well that put them above their base class. In that regard, they are the opposite of a 'sub-class'. Additionally, the Paladin is a bit of a contradiction under the Fighter class anyway. Where the Ranger has thief-like abilities when in the woods, they aren't quite close enough to say that the Ranger is a Fighter/Thief. The Paladin, on the other hand, is fairly well emulated by a Lawful Good Fighter/Cleric. There are a few abilities they don't get, like laying on hands, immunity to disease, and so forth. Nonetheless, should the Paladin be a Fighter sub-class, or a Cleric sub-class? Certainly, the primary role of the Paladin seems to be fighting, but most Clerics were on the front lines as well. A mace or a flail may not have quite the damage capacity of a longsword, but a few magical plusses and spells to boot meant the Cleric was just as deadly. The Paladin appears to fall just about equally into both camps, which makes it difficult to justify assigning to one or the other.

The whole thing is a bit muddy. No clear cut distinctions in all cases, and the sub-classes don't even really derive much from the parent or base class. Paladins use d10 for hit points, but Rangers use 2d8 at 1st level, and d8 after that. Barbarians use d12. Clerics can only use blunt weapons, but druids are allowed scimitars and sickles. Monks have Thief abilities and a d4, but aren't a sub-class of Thief. Magic Users and Illusionists are the closest to being a true base/child classification, but their spells are different only in the language used to read or write them. Mechanically, Illusionist and Magic User spells are in all ways identical. Of course, the spell listings in general are all standardized, so the same could be said of Clerical and Magic User spells; the underlying source of the magic was different, however, where Illusionist spells were not. Similarly, Druids recieved their spells from a divine source, the same as Clerics, so suffer from a similar blurring of the lines of distinction. In many ways, a Druid is as much a specialized Cleric as an Illusionist is a specialized Magic User. Rangers and Paladins, however, are not quite specialized Fighters in the same manner, while Monks are more of a specialized Thief than a distinct class.

The base classes should have a minimal amount of information which would be inhereted by the sub-classes, and then extended upon. Rarely should the base class information be replaced by the sub-class. Rangers have, on average, four-and-one-half more hit points at first level than a Fighter or Paladin, after which they are a hit point behind on average per level. When they both reach name level, the Ranger is four-and-one-half hit points behind. Overall, a rather trivial amount, considering the Ranger has few other restrictions, and spell casting at the higher levels. The Paladin has the same hit points, on average, as the Fighter, and has additional abilities to boot. The Charisma and alignment requirements are supposed to make them rarer, but in practice, it isn't much of a restriction. In this regard, Clerics and Magic Users fit the description fairly well, but perhaps not by design. Rather, it seems to be that the Illusionist and Druid were simply not radically different enough, being virtual clones of the base class.

Additionally, the base class should see as little use as possible; instead, the sub-classes should be extended to fit the need, and some small-ish number of characteristics inhereted from the base. Therefore, 'Fighter' should be a container for classes that are primarily trained in the use of weaponry. Under that, you would want the basic man-at-arms inheriting most of the Fighter base class characteristics, such as hit die, attack matrix, saving throws and so on. Very little would need to be added; perhaps weapon specialization not available to other Fighter types, or a level based bonus to AC or attacks. Instead of the base class pulling double duty as a playable class as well as a template for the sub-classes (and as we have seen, rather poorly), the base class would simply act as a template for future additions. It could be arranged in a manner such as:

FIGHTER
Hit Die: d10
Attack: Fighter
Saves: Fighter
Armour: Any
Weapon: Any
Race: Any
Spells: No

The basic man-at-arms or warrior would add 'Weapon Specialization: 3rd level' and 'Attack Bonus: +1 / 4 levels' or somesuch, the details to be elaborated in the descriptive text. The Ranger might have a line that superceeds the base class thus: 'Spells: Arcane and Divine (delayed)', while a Barbarian would have 'Hit Die: d12', as examples. Care must be exercised, however. It is far too easy to replace everything for the base class and add on besides.

I believe a method such as this will help in maintaining focus in character creation, as well as providing interesting things for players to do while adventuring. Additionally, it provides more options for tailoring character classes to a specific campaign beyond simple exclusions like 'no Clerics'. You could simply change the Cleric base class to say 'Spells: No' and generally leave the rest of the sub-classes intact. And of course, these restrictions need not apply equally for PCs and NPCs. NPCs may be wholly unrestricted in class and race combinations, for whatever reason. So, 'disabling' spell casting for the Cleric template may only mean that no PCs can cast spells, but temple priests or other NPC Cleric types have no such limitation.

For Alternate Character sets, I will be looking at some of these to provide more options in character generation. For example, Paladins will be a kind of Exemplar, which will end up under Clerics. Additionally, Magic Users will likely end up under a parent class of Arcane Casters or somesuch, with Illusionists and Conjurers as specialization options, with Sorcerers and Alienists casting a different type of magic, hence different classes. I am hoping to present several spell casting options, such as spell points and rune magic. Additionally, I am planning on adding options for the other classes as well; specialty priests, Divine magic domains, Arcane magic spheres, Thieves' organizations and guilds, Fighter techniques and schools, and others as they occur to me. Hopefully as a framework so others can more easily create and add on to OSRIC or 1st Edition AD&D for thier own campaigns, or to share with others.

I am sure I will talk more about this later, so until then!