OSR Minimalist Paladin and Ranger rules for B/X aka Old School Essentials

I've mentioned a number of times how I see the Halfling as sort of the "secret Ranger" class of B/X, with a suite of abilities that conform very well to that archetype, and how easy it is to re-skin it to be a Ranger if one wants.

Similarly, I've discussed with folks how the Dwarf is almost a monster hunter/mage hunter/paladin-type class, between the fighting abilities and great saving throws.

I was just tinkering with the idea of actually formalizing these re-skins for my B/X house rules, and maybe giving them one signature special ability each to help round out the archetype. So here are draft initial versions:

-----------------
Paladin: A character with a minimum Strength of 9, Charisma of 17, and Lawful alignment may be designated a Paladin. They have no Prime Requisite and do not gain XP bonuses for one. This class otherwise functions as a Dwarf, but without the small size, weapon restrictions, infravision, improved ability to find "room" traps, or extra languages. They count as a Fighter for magic item usage and spell effects.

Paladins are immune to magical and non-magical fear and diseases.

Ranger: A character with a minimum Strength, Wisdom, Constitution, and Dexterity of 9 may be designated a Ranger. They have no Prime Requisite and do not gain XP bonuses for one. This class otherwise functions as a Halfling, but without the small size, weapon restrictions, or extra language. They count as a Fighter for magic item usage and spell effects.

Rangers may track corporeal creatures outdoors with the same chances as a Thief of equal level Hearing Noise, and indoors on a 1 in 6.
-----------------

What do you think?

I'm tempted to simplify the Ranger minimum ability scores to minimize any need for looking up the requirements. A Halfling normally is minimum Con and Dex of 9, so I thought about just keeping those.

I also initially thought 16 was a high enough requirement for Cha on the Paladin, and that's the break point for +2. But 17 is the classic minimum and easy to remember for any old schoolers.

Of course, OSE Advanced has its own full class write-ups for these, more closely emulating the AD&D versions. But I like how these don't require a detailed two page write-up. A single paragraph each that I can fit into my page of house rules, and I can memorize easily.

I know I've seen this idea floating around in the OSR blogosphere for years and years, and it does work. In fact, it has some official precedent: in the Thyatis / Alphatia boxed set, there are foresters, Thyatian humans who belong to the elf class (and that's what inspired the rangers in my own BECMI house rules).

Regarding the ability score requirements, even a Cha 16 is going to make the class pretty rare. Depends on how uncommon you want it to be overall. Do you envision having dwarves and paladins in the same campaign, or does your paladin concept mean to replace the dwarf class?

If you intend for paladins to exist alongside dwarves, or you want them to be particularly rare, yeah, Cha 17 works fine for that. If you want them to be more of an everyday option, I'd go for something like Str and Con 9, Wis and Cha 13 (since that matches the BXcetera paradigm better).

Jack Daniel said:

I know I've seen this idea floating around in the OSR blogosphere for years and years, and it does work. In fact, it has some official precedent: in the Thyatis / Alphatia boxed set, there are foresters, Thyatian humans who belong to the elf class (and that's what inspired the rangers in my own BECMI house rules).

Regarding the ability score requirements, even a Cha 16 is going to make the class pretty rare. Depends on how uncommon you want it to be overall. Do you envision having dwarves and paladins in the same campaign, or does your paladin concept mean to replace the dwarf class?

If you intend for paladins to exist alongside dwarves, or you want them to be particularly rare, yeah, Cha 17 works fine for that. If you want them to be more of an everyday option, I'd go for something like Str and Con 9, Wis and Cha 13 (since that matches the BXcetera paradigm better).

Click to expand...

My intent is for them to be a rare special option, not replacing Dwarves. For me, part of the point of playing B/X is that you're getting the old-school feel and nostalgia value, just with simpler and more playable rules than AD&D. The "Hey, I rolled a 17 Cha and unlocked Paladin!" factor is part of that.

If I wanted it to replace Dwarves I would definitely reduce the ability requirement. Maybe even just require Cha 9, since the existing B/X Demihumans all use min 9 in the relevant scores as their gates.

As written above I think these are reasonably balanced with Fighters and Dwarves. You have to be Lawful and have that high Cha, you have no PR so you don't get bonus XP and can't point-swap to get a better Strength like a Fighter or Dwarf can, and you don't get the infravision, languages, or ability to spot room traps easier.

I don't think these are a bad way to do a humanocentric world - I tend to do similar things with the "elf" class - though I should finish that write up...

Paladins
The main thing is that I've never really thought the "Dwarf" class was especially distinct from fighter beyond some minutia in OD&D. There are some bonus skills, but in newer versions (I think AD&D, but some OSR versions at least) you don't get as good an attack table. In this case (assuming OSE) I think I'd have the Paladin have CHR as a prime req, but not require a roll - you can be a paladin if you want. I'd also give them the limitation that they cannot use missile weapons.

I would consider the following bonuses either at higher levels or even as a pick some at creation:

Lay on Hands - allows the Paladin to heal another up to 5HP per level to a max of 25HP once per session at an equal cost of HP to the Paladin.

Divine Fury - Paladin's weapons strike as if they are "Silver".

Paragon - Paladin's may interpose themselves between an ally and a foe instead of taking an action in the next round - foe must direct all attacks at Paladin.

Rangers
Things are even weirder here. The Halfling has a bundle of abilities that just generally aren't great - or maybe they are depending on the game. The ranger in old D&D is the "Aragorn" class... it's bizarre. The Ranger archetype now is someone with a bow and a pet bear/lion etc.

So is this a beastmaster class, a wilderness tracker class, a missile specialist fighter or - the blood of ancient "special people" who are almost elves?

The Halfling might be a good woodsy fighter, but I don't think it really scratches the itch most people wanting a ranger have?

Those are interesting questions.

Personally, I think the Halfling suite of abilities is genuinely quite strong. Outstanding saves, a small bonus on missile attacks, a notable (+2 is nothing to sneeze at) bonus to AC against larger than man-sized creatures (so instead of the OD&D Ranger getting a bonus to damage against "giant-types", this one gets an AC bonus against giants and any large beasts and so forth), hide/in shadows or better in woods. It has on average 1 fewer HP/level than Fighters and Dwarves.

So just using the by the book stats you've got stealth and using lighter weapons, a bonus to fight big monsters, and superior saves.

It's a fair point that "what IS a Ranger, really?" is an question with various answers in D&D. But for my money taking a B/X Halfling, making it not small, and giving it Tracking seems like it would hit MOST of the tropes of the Ranger aside from the beastmaster and Aragorn-specific ones.

I think your take on the Paladin is solid, but I don't like the prohibition on missiles. I think that's too Lawful Stupid for me, and it felt like a real handicap when I played an OSE Advanced Knight in one campaign. I've never liked making Paladins a kind of Cavalier.

If I was making full class write-ups no doubt I'd want to include higher level abilities, but I thought giving them each one signature thing was a nice exercise in minimalist design.

Mannahnin said:

Personally, I think the Halfling suite of abilities is genuinely quite strong. Outstanding saves, a small bonus on missile attacks, a notable (+2 is nothing to sneeze at) bonus to AC against larger than man-sized creatures (so instead of the OD&D Ranger getting a bonus to damage against "giant-types", this one gets an AC bonus against giants and any large beasts and so forth), hide/in shadows or better in woods. It has on average 1 fewer HP/level than Fighters and Dwarves.

So just using the by the book stats you've got stealth and using lighter weapons, a bonus to fight big monsters, and superior saves.

Click to expand...

You've pointed out one of the big Halfling advantages - the ability to get AC 0vs. bigger humanoids without any bonuses at Level 1 - though I'm not sure being harder to hit in plate armor then a fighter but better at shooting arrows makes a lot of sense here. The AC bonus in general doesn't sit right with me as long as it encourages players to field a heavy armor wielding front line "ranger" - who I'd arm with throwing axes to do some short range missile attacks when possible? Seems more like some kind of monster hunter or soldier from the Ogre wars - a defensive heavy combatant that favors missile weapons to the fighter's versatile warrior?

The "ranger" bit of the halfling kit would be to me the hiding real good, missile bonus, better listening, and maybe the optional (In OSE) +1 to initiative. From the D&D ranger the only things that serve ranger instead of Aragorn are the tracking and the surprise benefits.

Mannahnin said:

It's a fair point that "what IS a Ranger, really?" is an question with various answers in D&D. But for my money taking a B/X Halfling, making it not small, and giving it Tracking seems like it would hit MOST of the tropes of the Ranger aside from the beastmaster and Aragorn-specific ones.

Click to expand...

I could see a "Scout" class that has thief/cleric Attack progression (not that it matters much in B/X), +2 with missiles, and is limited to medium armor (chain) and no shield (you can't run about in the woods with a shield), no polearms, no two handed swords. Give them a hide/sneak in natural environments and a +1 to initiative, as well as a group is only Surprised on a 1 bonus. Not the best frontline fighter, but decent at lower levels for frontline combat, especially if they have a DEX bonus (also good to shoot things).

Of course the big sticking point for missile classes is how one handles firing into melee. Personally I use a flat 25% chance of hitting/injuring an ally (roll 5 or under on the attack roll do full damage to your friend - bonuses don't count - but there are some exceptions for huge opponents). This makes missile combat fairly rare in dungeons where combat usually goes to melee in the first round.

Now if we went more "WOW" ranger - I think animal companions/familiars are a tricky subject - because they can easily become a sort of fire and forget missile while your fantasy beastmaster would never want harm to come to their soul bonded special beasties. I'll save my thoughts for another day as the topic is interesting but not essential here.

Mannahnin said:

I think your take on the Paladin is solid, but I don't like the prohibition on missiles. I think that's too Lawful Stupid for me, and it felt like a real handicap when I played an OSE Advanced Knight in one campaign. I've never liked making Paladins a kind of Cavalier.

Click to expand...

Maybe not a prohibition, maybe just "never goes above first level bonus" - I would be tempted to do the same for missile specialists with melee, but that would be cruel in B/X.

A complete prohibition doesn't seem that - clerics are traditionally quite limited and only have ranged attacks with low damage hammers and slings (also have we considered how weird this is). I tend to ignore weapon limitations in favor of clerics being bad a ranged attacks and having slower HP/Atk bonus advancement to fighters - but that works best in OD&D. Certainly as written clerics should have higher leveling requirements - almost elf like?

Mannahnin said:

If I was making full class write-ups no doubt I'd want to include higher level abilities, but I thought giving them each one signature thing was a nice exercise in minimalist design.

Click to expand...

Yeah it's a good idea in general. Another minimalist design I like is the "Barbarian" style of class (could also be Dwarf) where you get a d10/d12 as an HD and your gimmick is 2D10/2D12 HP at first level ... but are limited to light armor and a shield (or medium - whatever works with the idea behind the class). So you get hit more but can soak a lot of damage. Feels 80's swords & sorcery greased up muscle warrior to me.

Does b/x have any diseases beyond mummy rot and lycanthropy?

Voadam said:

Does b/x have any diseases beyond mummy rot and lycanthropy?

Click to expand...

It has generic "dungeon disease" (e.g., inflicted by the bite of 5% of giant rats) which is 25% lethal 1d6 days after contracting it.

Voadam said:

Does b/x have any diseases beyond mummy rot and lycanthropy?

Click to expand...

There's always "cure disease" reversed? For me disease has always been a highly campaign specific risk - the few monster in the books sure, but an individual referee may focus on disease as a risk or not depending on the subject of the game. Despite the disease chance table in the AD&D DMG I suspect it's always been this way ... but it's the same with so many risks. The elvish ability not to be effected by sleep, charm or ghoul paralysis - undoubtedly useful, but unlikely to come up unless one is dealing with the few things that have those abilities. Of course if your referee is running something called "Feasthall of the Ghoul King" it's great (but then disease resistance is great there too I suspect?)

One could roll lit into a +2 to save vs. poison or something of course?

Voadam said:

Does b/x have any diseases beyond mummy rot and lycanthropy?

Click to expand...

There aren't many; initially I was just going to make it immunity to fear, but immunity to disease also feels like a signature paladin thing, even if it won't come up much.