Demi-Human Expansion

 AKA Cocaine Is A Hell Of A Drug

From Dragon Magazine, issue #96:

With expansion of the deities in the WORLD OF GREYHAWK Fantasy Setting, and by Roger Moore's articles herein so as to provide for the races of demi-humankind, there is no logical reason to exclude their clerics from play...

Elves, half-elves, and halflings -- being more nature-oriented than the other demi-human races -- deserve admission to the druid sub-class. Elves are now unlimited in their ability to rise in levels within the druidical ranks, just as half-elves have always been...

Elves are no longer prohibited from entering the ranger sub-class with the same reasoning that now opens the druid sub-class to that race....

E. Gary Gygax, April 1985

In the previous Dragon (issue #95), Gygax had outlined new level maximums for the various demi- and semi-human races for characters that have exceptional ability scores, i.e. prime requisites that exceed the normal maximum for their species. As such an event only occurs through the use of powerful magic (for example dozens or scores of wish spells), I see no problem with extending levels for those rare circumstances. 

Likewise, I have even less problem with the new rule that allows single-classed non-humans to boost their maximum level by +2 in a class that they could normally multi-class with (for example, an elven magic-user or dwarven fighter). This is sensible and a nice bennie for non-humans that seek to "focus" in a particular profession. An excellent addition to the game, while still allowing humans to maintain their place in the PC hierarchy by dint of their "unlimited potential."

SO...see those last two paragraphs? One thing: non-obtrusive. Second thing: good and welcome.

Now, let's talk about everything else. Because Gary seems to have been all coked up when he tweaked out the rest of this mess.

Players and DMs alike should take note of an impotant new rule change which is alluded to herein: player characters can be members of certain demi-human sub-races that are not permitted to PCs by the rules in the Players Handbook -- namely, the valley elf, grugach, drow, duergar, and svirfneblin. More will be said about this new development in subsequent articles. For now, however, players who choose to have drow, duergar, or svirfneblin characters should heed this general stricture: The alignment of such a player character may be of any sort, but daylight adventuring must be severely curtailed due to the nature of these creatures. Without special eye protection and clothing, these three demi-human types will suffer slight problems and sickness due to exposure to sunlight. 

No, Gary. No. No. No.

No, you cannot give players to play powerful demi-humans...creatures originally designed to provide additional challenge to high level PCs with their extra special abilities. Creatures with built-in magic resistance or natural spell powers or the capability of summoning elemental monsters regardless of class. No, Gary. You are high, man. You are NOT thinking straight.

Unfortunately, however, the drugs would continue to flow all the way through the publication of the Unearthed Arcana, when the final blow would be struck to the balance of non-human class relations:

The cavalier class is not listed on the tables for elves and half-elves, and the bard class is not listed on the table for half-elves, because level advancement in either of those classes is unlimited to any character with the requisite ability scores to qualify for the class.

Fucking cocaine, man. 

Anyone unfamiliar with the cavalier class as it appears in the UA will have to wait for the next post in this series to understand just how crap-tastic it is to give elves unlimited class advancement in a class that's...basically...a better fighter. That such a character could also be, say, a drow with a bunch of bonus bennies is a friggin' travesty. Oh Noes! So sad I have a -2 penalty to hit in daylight...we're exploring dungeons, jackass! If I'm getting into fights in town, there's already something wrong!

*sigh*

But let's talk about some of the more subtle problems here. Letting non-humans into the ranger and druid class is a thumbing of the nose at the (unstated) wold-building inherent in the original work. Rangers are not "woodsy heroes of good" (and even if they were, why the hell would a DROW get to be one?)...rather they are AVENGING KILLER HUMANS that hunt and murder the humanoids that threaten humankind. That rangers operate in the wilderness is because THAT'S WHERE THEY FIND THEIR PREY.  It's not the "civilized" ork or goblin that they're protecting (human) people from...it's the roaming bands of cannibalistic hostiles that would otherwise overwhelm fragile humanity. Regardless of your take on alignment, forcing rangers to be "good" places them in direct opposition to the listed (evil) alignment of their quarry.

And druids? Do we not remember what these are and where they came from?

DRUIDS:  These men are priests of a neutral-type religion, and as such they differ in armor class and hit dice, as well as in movement capability, and are a combination of clerics/magic-users...they will generally (70%) be accompanied by a number of barbaric followers....

From Supplement I, Greyhawk

...They are more closely attuned to Nature, serving as its priests rather than serving some other deity... Druids have an obligation to protect woodland animals and plants, especially trees. Unlike the obligation of lawful and good types towards others of this sort, the tendencu of druids will be to punish those who destroy their charges, rather than risk their own lives to actually save the threatened animal or plant. Druids will not slay an animal if it can be avoided, and they can never willingly or deliberately destroy a copse, woods or forest -- no matter how enchanted or evil it may be -- although they may attempt to modify such a place with their own magicks.

From Supplement III, Eldritch Wizardry

As explained in the PHB: "Druids can be visualized as medieval cousins of what the ancient Celtic sect of Druids would have become had it survived the Roman conquest."  These are very HUMAN  characters, aligned with neutrality/nature, not the frolicking Chaotic Good elves feasting on freshly hunted deer. If anything, druids and elves would probably live in a state of polite distance (if not Cold War style hostility), each in their own section of the forest...if not different forests altogether. That half-elves can beliong to the druid class (and the druidic-based bard class) speaks more to their human nature than any elvish part of their blood.  The same reason, really, that they can become rangers (although lacking the unlimited leveling potential of a fully human ranger). 

It's part of the neat thing about half-elves: they get more OPTIONS than an elf. Now you're giving me no reason to play a half-elf at all...except as a bard (and interestingly enough, all the half-elves in the campaign of my youth were bards, including my own PC). 

And thus a new trope was born...of elven archer-y rangers and leafy-pantsed druids. Man, it always bugged me the way 3.0 portrayed rangers and druids as elves, and now I know why (though I guess that's not as bad as dragonborn paladins...). Still, if you're going to allow elves to become rangers "by the same reasoning" that gives them unlimited druid access, why not go all the way and let halflings play giant-killer, too? What? They can't shoot a bow?

Idiocy.

Of course NOW ("officially") halflings can become CLERICS...something that wasn't allowed in the PHB (even for NPCs). And, why? Because Roger Moore came up with some demi-human deities for a specific campaign setting, that Gary wanted to throw his editor a bone (and some royalties) by using them as filler in the new UA book. AND he (Gary) extended the maximum clerical level obtainable by non-humans (PC and NPC alike) to the point that a dwarf or elf with 18 wisdom (not even a number requiring wish magic!) can obtain double-digit (!!) levels of experience...while the poor half-elf can't get higher than 8!

That's right: a dwarf cleric can reach a higher level of cleric than they can fighter. Cocaine.

Okay, again, understand the original world-building of the game. Originally, ONLY HUMANS COULD BE CLERICS...of the adventuring sort. Yes, you could find dwarf and elf clerics (see their monster description in Supplement I: Greyhawk), because it makes sense that a demihuman population worships their own gods and have their own priests. But those clerics were of limited ability: 

On the other hand half-elves, since their inception, have always been allowed to earn levels as an adventuring cleric: presumably because of their human nature. That they could not advance very high showed how their elven half limited their ability to advance within the (human/adventuring) church...even though they could make up for it through multi-classing (half-elves with OPTIONS had the largest number of multi-class possibilities of any race in the PHB). It is this same elven nature (presumably) that prevented the character from being a paladin (originally) even though they wee human enough to take up the mantle of ranger. 

[yet another reason why the UA's allowance of half-elf paladins is such a slap in the face]

Similarly, half-orcs were also given the ability to become clerics and cleric multi-classes...the only other non-human (besides the half-elf) with the capability. Again, the assumption is this is possible because of the character's semi-human nature...they have the blood of humanity in their veins and so can learn the ways of the human (adventuring) church. That these teachings could be perverted to evil and combined with the skills of an assassin speaks to their orcish side, I imagine.

But with the UA rules, no half-orc with max wisdom (14) nor half-elf (18) will ever equal a dwarf with even a 16 wisdom (not an elf with 17) because...reasons? Their racial deities are cooler, I guess?

*sigh* (again)

Hey! How 'bout this? Have you ever noticed that...with the advent of the new super-official Unearthed Arcana...even while demi-human class and level potentials were "expanded," a LOT of the original (i.e. PHB race-class combos) were actually reduced? Huh? What? That's right...here's the comparison:

   Dwarf fighter, STR 16 (or less) in PHB: maximum 7th level

   "Hill Dwarf" fighter, STR 16 (or less) in UA: maximum 6th level

   (High) elf fighter, STR 17 in PHB: maximum 6th level (7th with STR 18)

   High/Grey elf fighter, STR 17 in UA: maximum 5th level (6th with STR 18)

   Gnome fighter, STR 18 in PHB: maximum 6th level

   Gnome fighter, STR 18 in UA: maximum 5th level

   Half-elf fighter, STR 18 in PHB: maximum 8th level

   Half-elf fighter, STR 18 in UA: maximum 7th level

   (High) elf magic-user, INT 18 in PHB: maximum 11th level

   High elf magic-user, INT 18 in UA: maximum 10th level

So, yeah: adopt the new UA rules and all your "standard" races are going to suck a bit more. Hey, but at least they raised the maximum thief level a half-orc can achieve (still not "U" however, so why would a half-orc be anything bother being anything but an assassin?).

It's crap...it's all just a big pile of crap. I'm sure there are folks that LOVE the Unearthed Arcana rules and the newly expanded demi-human roles. Sorry...I'm not one of them. Here, I'll share another fun, personal anecdote with everyone: when I decided I wanted to start playing AD&D again (four-ish years ago), I decided to look at each D&D race, and their allowable classes, and figure exactly how high of level I wanted their potential to be based on A) how I viewed the species, and B) how it fit with my world/setting. This included looking at what I wanted their best fighting ability to be, the highest level of skill I wanted them to get to, the best spells they would have access to, and all the various "class abilities" (like the gaining of henchmen or "baron status" or whatever) they might achieve. I decided that I was not going to be a "slave to the rules," but would "make my own choices" as to what level/class restrictions would be allowed in my game. 

And what I found was that I liked ALL the classes and level restrictions AS WRITTEN. The PHB limits are perfectly appropriate, based on how I see my campaign world. Well, except I'd like a dedicated, "focused" non-human to be able to achieve a slightly higher level (and the UA '+2 to max' rule gets that job done). 

But I definitely don't want elven cavaliers and (adventuring) dwarven clerics and half-elf paladins in my game. Nor do I have any interest in making duergar and drow and svirfneblin available as PC race types...my players have yet to discover and explore the Underdark! Why should that content be available to players from the get-go? 

(Spoiler: it shouldn't)

There have, of course, been worse travesties in D&D since the UA was published. Allowing PC githzerai (hello, 2E Players Options!). And WotC's devolving the druid class into its current shape-shifting/no semblance of origin/bullshit is a clear sign that the designers live in Seattle and smoke way too much weed ("Dude, like, why don't we, like, lean heavy into the shape-changing thing? Like isn't that better than making them use a scimitar all the time?" "Yeah, dude. Like what if it were a dragon-born druid, and it could become, like, a REAL dragon." "Dude, cool.").  Yeah, far worse travesties. But adopting the UA rules wholesale into your 1E game is...pretty bad. You're going to end up with a lot of elven cavaliers.

(I mean, why wouldn't you? No level cap, right?)

No. The PHB works JUST FINE. Add the +2 bonus to max level for single-class demi- and semi-humans. Leave out the non-standard "sub-races" (terrible term, BTW, Gary). Leave out the cavaliers. If PCs end up taking their prime requisites into the 20s some point down the road then, sure...take a gander at the UA tables to get an idea at how many bonus levels to grant (here's an idea: +1 to max level for each point over 18). But, otherwise, just stick with the classics; stick with what works.

And remember folks: drugs are bad for your brain.

Must. Stop. Doing. Cocaine.

Third Level

The trial and error and enthusiasm for the D&D game continues in my household. More dead characters abound. I will relate but a single amusing anecdote:

Diego (my boy) playing two characters simultaneously wanted to return to the lizard god temple mentioned last Thursday. This was his third such foray since the TPK that kicked off the campaign; he's like a dog gnawing at a bone. This time, he was bringing two characters: a cleric ("Brother James") and a magic-user whose name escapes me but who was said to be the younger brother of another mage that had been captured (and ultimately sacrificed) in Diego's second foray to the dungeon. D said he wanted revenge against the cultists (who, just by the way, have not established themselves as evil or anything).

Entering under the guise of new worshippers (and paying an offering in gold for the privilege), the pair made it to the main shrine where they cast sleep, dropping all present into a deep slumber. They then proceeded to steal the golden idol from the altar stone and abscond with it before anyone was the wiser. Back in the city, they sold its emerald eyes to a gnome gem-cutter and its gold body to a jeweler that paid them its weight in coin. Diego then congratulated himself mightily.

"Do you feel like you've gotten sufficient revenge for your brother's death?" Um...

The kid realized he'd been so excited at his ruse/petty theft working that he'd forgotten his vendetta entirely ("I should have killed them while they were asleep!")...and indeed, has made dangerous enemies who will certainly be seeking payback of their own for the defilement of their temple. Probably with a hired assassin (time to start working on those subclass rules...).

The more I hone my play, the more I focus on my campaign setting, the more dross and detriment I find myself doing away with. You really, really don't need a "thief" class to play this game (though I can see how one might be helpful in certain instances). And critical hits? Sheesh...I've axed them from the game after a single session and mine were really easy.

[my crit rule was simple: roll a natural 20, do max damage. I did this because I felt players would dig the "excitement" that came with hitting that nat 20 and that they would want some type of reward for the lucky happenstance. In practice, *I* was the one rolling the nat 20s...and why not, when I was acting as so many more NPCs?...which just meant PCs getting cut down faster. That being said I am keeping the "natural 1 attack risks losing your weapon" rule, which I hope will...eventually...affect the NPCs more than the PCs, for the same reasons]

Mostly, I'm running the game as originally written, with very few rule additions...most of which come directly from Mr. Gygax's (stated) house rules. However, there's been one Gygaxian house rule I've studiously avoided since the get go: starting all player characters at 3rd level of experience. I know I've written about this before (most recently back in 2018) and how I find it objectionable from both a design point of view and from general principal.

I've changed my mind.

All PCs in my campaign are now starting at 3rd level. I know there are folks reading this who are going to "tap out" of this discussion as soon as they read that sentence...I'm not the only person that likes to stand on principal. But I've thought about this a lot the last couple days (especially as I've gained more experience with the OD&D system) and I want to enumerate all the reasons I've decided this to be a sensible approach:

• Enhanced survivability: characters get an extra two hit dice. On average this means they can absorb two more blows (one more as a magic-user) than a normal beginning character, giving the player time to re-evaluate a bad tactical decision (i.e. fighting a superior foe). There's some "wiggle-room" for the player, in other words, rather than a "oh, you made a bad decision and/or just got unlucky" one-shot kill result. At least, THOSE situations are more rare when PCs start with more hit points.
• Retained low level experience: no OD&D character gets their first "step up" in attack table or saving throw matrices before 4th level (fighting men only). Heck, no character class gets extra weapon proficiencies (their first new one would be gained at 4th level); characters are left with the same basic "skills" as they had at 1st level.
• Emphasize player skill: with regard to handling starting equipment of a 3rd level character, I allow the players to choose whatever they want off the basic equipment list, with the caveat that they must be able to carry it on their person (in addition, they automatically receive a light horse, saddle, and saddle bags). Players still roll "starting gold" (3d6x10), but this is coin wealth, not equipment. Rather than force players to conform to random chance with regard to what gear they take, they are only limited by their own wishes/choices and encumbrance...and encumbrance is a major part of the game.
• Bonuses received are minor but helpful: a magic-user has three or four starting spells (one of 2nd level), a cleric has two or three (all first level) and the ability to turn monsters up to wraith, and fighters can make three attacks per round when in melee with "lesser" opponents (men and monsters of 1 HD or less). This provides a little more variation/utility to how PCs approach challenges and it isn't so much as to be overwhelming to the new player.
• More game content available: DMs working with 1st level characters...especially inexperienced players using 1st level characters...are forced to walk on eggshells with regard to scenarios, monsters, and challenges presented. Goblins, kobolds, normal men, and giant rats (all in small numbers) are about the only thing such PCs have a decent chance against...and even then, poor luck can quickly mean the death of a character or five. The higher level of the PCs opens a larger range of possible opponents to delight and astound the players. The scenario I've written for today's game includes an encounter with ice trolls (adapted from the Fiend Folio)...2 hit die monsters with minor regeneration. Those should be both fun and different for the players to confront! Also, falling into a pit is less likely to break your character's neck.
• Starting at 3rd level does not preclude low level characters in the game: in the past, I've asked 'If all PCs start at 3rd level, why even bother writing rules for 1st and 2nd level?' There are two very good reasons for this: 1st and 2nd level characters are fantastic for NPCs (wizard apprentices and under-clerics, or up-and-coming heroes) especially the retainers for the player characters (which must start at 1st level). The other reason is that players may end up playing lower level characters: if their main PC dies and they want to take control of a valued henchman, that might well mean playing a character of lower level. And don't forget energy drain! Wights are highly appropriate encounters for 3rd level characters, and it's not too tough to imagine players being drained to a lower level than that at which they started.
• Still retains the "joy" of paying your dues: in OD&D, it takes a player the same number of experience points to get from 3rd to 4th level as it does to get from 1st to 3rd. All you've done is halved the distance...and the slog...of getting there. And even though your character is "paying dues" by fighting low HD monsters, the emphasis becomes more about the treasure, as the x.p. yield from lower HD monsters is fractional, using the PCs' level as a denominator (i.e. those 1 hit die orcs only yield 33 x.p. instead of 100 x.p. to the 3rd level character; you need to kill three times as many for the same reward). I'm not sure you're cutting more than handful of sessions from the character's career...and if it's half a dozen sessions of dross, so much the better.
• Adequately handles the elf (and half-elf) "issue:" I actually like the OD&D mechanics of elves multi-classing...the handling of elves in OD&D generally has given me a lot of grist for my campaign setting which I will, perhaps, discuss in a later post (hint: I'm going Moorcock, not Tolkien, with the species). Unfortunately, you have an issue of the beginning elf character: is it assumed to be 1st/1st level from the get-go (thus giving the player an extra level compared to other adventurers?) or does it simply become 1st/1st in its second game session (when the player decides to switch classes solely with the purpose of picking up a much needed extra hit die)? By starting the PCs at 3rd level, I require elves (and half-elves who have the same capability) to chose which classes gain which levels: i.e. they start as a 1st/2nd fighter/magic-user or a 2nd/1st fighter/magic-user (half-elves with a wisdom of 13+ must be a 1st/1st/1st fighter/magic-user/cleric).Players can thereafter choose to split (or neglect) their advancement as they see fit, but all issues of "training" multiple classes are handled.

The "3" is for third level.

For all these reasons, I have no qualms about allowing PCs to begin their OD&D careers at 3rd level, just as "Grandpa Gary" claims to have been running for his own game. As I wrote at the beginning, I'm sure there are folks who will object to my reasoning out-of-hand, but until play-testing shows me the error of my ways, this is what I'm going with. I'll let y'all know how it goes, but right now I feel pretty good about this decision (as ever, I reserve the right to change my mind).

Pax.

Holmes Rules: The Half-Elf

"You making fun of
my beard, or my ears?"

Half-Elves -- are nearly as tall as humans, and exhibit the same human range of skin color, but are slighter in build. Like elves, they have infravision and an increased ability to spot secret doors, and usually speak both Elvish and Common speech, in addition to any languages due to intelligence. Their mixed ancestry makes them natural diplomats and they are generally charming and well-liked by all who meet them (+1 to reaction rolls). While they cannot mix fighting and magic as elves, they have a good range of classes in which they may progress, being barred only from the paladin, illusionist, assassin, and monk subclasses. Despite their name, half-elves may have as little as 25% ancestry (from either side) and still possess the attributes of a "half-elf."

[the long awaited Holmesian half-elf. I've only got a couple more of these pre-scheduled posts...then I'll have to start writing again. If I can (holidays, ya' know?)]

Hybrids

And then I look at half-elves and I think...so what the hell am I going to do with them?

As I mentioned way back when, I wanted to do a Holmesian write-up for half-elves the same way I did for the various subclasses mentioned in his Basic text. Unfortunately, while I can understand why such a player race might exist (and it provides interesting role-playing possibilities in elf-human relation scenarios), mechanically, it's kind of...meh.

At least, when you consider it in light of my decisions on demihuman classes, level limits, and the absence of multi-classing. I mean, here's what a half-elf gives you:

Infravision (as an elf)
Extra languages (as an elf)
Secret door spotting (as an elf)

Aaaaannd...that's it.

Now, in a game of OD&D or AD&D, there's some incentive to play a half-elf. Additional class options not available to elves (including the cleric, ranger, and druid). Additional multi-classing opportunities (which I'm not using). Higher levels to be gained in some classes...well, really only fighter and assassin (+1 level each). If one uses the optional bard class in 1E AD&D you also have a great incentive to be a half-elf (my long-running AD&D character was a half-elf bard).

I'll probably end up going "off-book" again when it comes to this hybrid species. Considering my current race-class restrictions:

• All elves are combo fighter/mages (no, there are no "elven thieves")
• Dwarves may be either fighters or thieves
• Halflings may be either fighters or thieves
• No demihuman may belong to a subclass

...the best mechanical incentive I can probably include is the loosening of class restrictions for half-elf characters. However (as usual), it has to make sense within the setting of the campaign.

Furthermore, if I decide to include half-orcs (a strong temptation) I need to apply some consistency to how a semi-human hybrid functions. If the half-elf's human nature gives him the ability to participate in human-restricted classes, the same should be true of half-orcs, right? But while the original PHB rules provided a bit of parity (similar levels and classes) there were some inconsistencies (cleric for both, yes; druid, no...and no ranger or magic-user options for the half-orc).

ALSO, I really dislike the idea of giving a character the ability to be a subclass but not the class. For example, I'm tempted to allow half-orc witches (that "earthy magic" thing) but half-orc magic-users? I guess I'm stereotyping the fantasy subhuman here, but I don't see half-orcs scribing scrolls like a Holmesian mage.

Less viable than a half-elf

What to do, what to do. Thing is, do hybrids get "the best" of both species? Should they? The typical Old School D&D response would be "no" to both these questions, but I'm not sure that's right. Certainly humans of mixed race have a tendency to be healthier (less chance of genetic duplication and defect). But we're talking about mixed species, here, not races within the same species. A mule is a good example: combining a horse with a donkey gives you an animal that is:

"more patient, sure-footed, hardy, and long-lived than horses, and...less obstinate, faster, and more intelligent than donkeys."

However, that's not to say they're as fast as a horse, nor as tough and easy to care for as a donkey. They aren't and they aren't. But what they are is their own thing...their own hybrid species.

Tolkien half-orcs were taller than (normally squat) orcs...which could simply mean they had better posture...and no fear of sunlight. Tolkien half-elves were required to choose whether to live as elves or humans, though those who chose humanity were still blessed with abnormally long lifespans (well, abnormal compared to a normal human). In Tolkien, half-orcs were inherently "bad" and half-elves inherently "good," unlike humans who might go over to either side...and until 3rd edition D&D, I never did see a half-orc of good alignment (probably because they were so often multi-class assassins, with an evil alignment restriction).

*sigh* Have I ever mentioned how little I like infravision?

All right, I'm going to have to chew on this for a bit...I'll try to get something written up tomorrow (either for one or both). Later.

[EDIT: while I did "write up something tomorrow" this post was written several days ago, as was its subsequent follow-up. I have half a dozen posts scheduled to roll out on the blog in anticipation of my writing restrictions while traveling. However, I am still looking for comments and feedback on these thoughts.]