Topic: Human-only Setting - Variant classes to replace demi-humans

I really appreciate the gritty vibe created by the rules and mechanics of LotFP, but I'm still irked by the presence of demi-human PC options, despite their more grim fluff stories.

For a truly human-only Swords & Sorcery setting (à la Hyborian Age, or Nehwon), I don't want to simply remove 3/7 of the playable classes.

So I've tweaked them, keeping most of it intact. Note the differences in italics.

Barbarian
(based on the Dwarf class)

  • Advanced score in Climb skill

  • +5 items to suffer first encumbrance point

  • +1 CON modifier

  • Continue to apply CON modifier to hit points after 9th level

  • Attack Bonus progresses at half the rate of a Fighter

  • Suffer double encumbrance penalty for armour

  • -5 penalty on saving throws against hypnotism, charms and mind-affecting magic

Ranger
(based on the Halfling class)

  • +1 DEX modifier

  • +1 AC when not surprised

  • In wilderness, have a 5 in 6 Stealth skill

  • Advanced score in Bushcraft skill

  • Suffer triple encumbrance penalty for armour

  • Attack Bonus progresses at half the rate of a Warrior

  • Suffer a -5 penalty to hit with great melee weapons and two-handed melee weapons

I don't yet have a replacement for the fighter/magic-user that is the Elf. Perhaps a paladin (replace magic-user spells with Cleric spells)? Or a warrior-monk (new spell list drawing from Magic-user and Cleric, but treat them as "powers" instead of spells).

Last edited by timmyd (2011-07-29 16:52:28)

Re: Human-only Setting - Variant classes to replace demi-humans

Ed Dove wrote:

As a replacement for the Elf, how about something like the Sorceror from Carcosa?

I'm not familiar with Carcosa, although I've heard it mentioned many times on these OSR forums. I'll check it out.

One of the essential ingredients in tweaking the existing Dwarf/Elf/Halfling classes is to avoid changing too much, else you are really just creating new classes (which in itself isn't necessarily so bad).

I really grappled with whether or not to add the "Attack Bonus progresses at half the rate of a Fighter" benefits to both classes. I may have house-ruled those into the Dwarf/Halfling anyways, but perhaps I should have left it out of these presentations. But to be honest, I just couldn't accept a Barbarian being as effective in battle as a Thief or Wizard.

I did consider leaving the Ranger be less effective, though. Personally, I've never liked the representation of a Ranger as a dual-weapon wielding monster slayer. I rather prefer the Ranger to be a wilderness scout and guide.

Re: Human-only Setting - Variant classes to replace demi-humans

Could you replace the Elf by simply using all the Elf rules as written, but considering them humans who are members of a class with all the abilities of the Elf class?

Re: Human-only Setting - Variant classes to replace demi-humans

Ed Dove wrote:

My wife & I were talking about what we could think of as a sort of Fighter/Magic-User to replace the Elf.  And, while we didn't come up with anything new, we did decide what we'd do to change the Elf into a Paladin.

Elf -> Paladin
Replace "Search" with "Languages".
Replace Magic-User spell progression with Cleric spell progression.
Attack Bonus = Level/3 rounded up.

The result is that, while the Cleric is an inquisitor fighting heresy at home, the Paladin is a crusader fighting infidels abroad.

I'm doing something similar - 'demi-human' means you've a small amount of dwarvish, elvish or halfling blood; an ancestral heritage from races that died out/departed/withdrew centuries ago. I'll use the classes as is, with characters being cosmetically human save for a few unremarkable tells.

Re: Human-only Setting - Variant classes to replace demi-humans

Ed Dove wrote:

Elf -> Paladin
Replace "Search" with "Languages".
Replace Magic-User spell progression with Cleric spell progression.
Attack Bonus = Level/3 rounded up.

The result is that, while the Cleric is an inquisitor fighting heresy at home, the Paladin is a crusader fighting infidels abroad.

This is a great idea, Ed, and one that I had toyed with myself. But I did see the conflict between the Cleric and Paladins, and I couldn't rationalize the difference. Why would you want to be just a Cleric when you could be a Paladin? And I don't find your idea of inquisitor vs. crusader very conducive to the adventuring party (hell, I don't find Paladins conducive to adventuring parties!).

I did consider a Warrior-Monk type of class, with a selective list pulling from both Clerics and Magic-users to include spells that are "monkish" even if it's a stretch (e.g. remove fear, delay poison, heroism, water walk, true seeing, feather fall, shield, spider climb, knock, army of one, haste, speak with plants).

While I am not crazy about introducing one entire class that clearly has an Oriental Adventures flavour, I think that it fits quite well, and the spell list would be a lot of fun. And the other Elf abilities, such as great saving throws, good Search skill and less chance of surprise, also fit well with a Warrior-Monk.

Perhaps the Warrior-Monk would also start with d4 unarmed attack damage and increase in dice size every four levels.

Re: Human-only Setting - Variant classes to replace demi-humans

I like the idea of replacing the dwarf with a Barbarian Class, and calling the halfling a Ranger or Scout Class and balancing the excellent saving throws with armour encumbrance penalties. I think the penalties for armour should only come into play for medium and heavy armour (chain and plate) though. These two classes should be able to wear leather with no penalty since it fits their flavour so well.

As for the elf class, I think a cult of weird human warriors would be a good replacement. I'd have them as a kind of "Tattooed Man" with swirling Pictish style tattoos covering their entire bodies. The special thing about them would be how they tattoo secret glyphs that are a magical short-hand for spells in between the lines on their bodies. Maybe this magical language was first taught to their founder by a dragon he had rendered a special service to, eons ago.

The tattoos serve as each warrior's spellbook and they also identify him or her as a magic user and a member of the sect. In Weird Fantasy, magic is rare and misunderstood so these people would likely be feared, shunned or both by the  common folk. That would make them rare in the same way elves are rare now and leave the class open to the same kinds of prejudice elves would normally receive in a place like Pembrooktonshire.

To prepare spells the character would need privacy since he/she needs to disrobe to study the glyphs and at higher levels they'd likely need a pair of mirrors to see all the spells written on their bodies.

Despite the advantage of never losing a spellbook, there are the problems created by deep scars, burns or amputations. How much of a spellbook is lost when a character is hurt badly and can't find magical healing?

The cult can have crazy, mystic training to make them aware of their surroundings and resistant to paralysis and mind affecting magic. That would allow the advantages of the class to stand as they are.

Re: Human-only Setting - Variant classes to replace demi-humans

David wrote:

... I think the penalties for armour should only come into play for medium and heavy armour (chain and plate) though. These two classes should be able to wear leather with no penalty since it fits their flavour so well...

I've ended up removing the armor penalty because it doesn't make sense to add such a penalty to barbarian and ranger classes while leaving the cleric/specialist/magic-user without such a penalty. It would make a magic-user be more less encumbered by plate-mail than a barbarian!

I originally added the armor penalty to those classes to balance out the added bonus of an advancing attack bonus. I'm revisiting this idea, and I've settled on leaving them with the same static attack bonus (+1) as all other non-fighter classes. While I may be convinced otherwise for the barbarian, I just don't visualize the ranger as a fighter-type.

So without the armour penalty, how do I apply a negative aspect on the ranger to replace the halfling's weapon restrictions, which clearly don't make sense for a man-sized ranger?

I took a different approach and state that rangers only gain 80% XP from treasures. Simple and makes sense - those wilderness types are loners who don't live by the materialistic ways of the decadent urbanites. And I like that is recalls the AD&D limits on Rangers' wealth.

I will publish my versions of these classes via PDF on my blog: http://chainmail-bikini.blogspot.com in the coming days, as well as a modified spell list for a truer Swords & Sorcery setting.

Re: Human-only Setting - Variant classes to replace demi-humans

I like what you did there, but to protect the Fighter class I would make two changes:

First, I would give the Ranger and Barbarian an Attack bonus of +1 at first level like everyone else and have them get additional bonuses of +1 at 3rd, 6th, 9th. 12th, 15th, and 18th levels. The other thing I'd do is have the progressing bonuses they get during advancement apply only to melee for the Barbarian and only missile attacks for the Ranger.

That way they are still much better than the other classes at certain types of combat and the fighter still shines as the combat master. I think it reflects the lack of discipline you'd find in a Barbarian and the other priorities of the Ranger.

Re: Human-only Setting - Variant classes to replace demi-humans

Ed Dove wrote:

...rather than discouraging them from acquiring treasure, it would actually encourage them to acquire even more treasure to make up for the difference.

You're right - that's an great analysis of the end result. I will have to think about how to create a balancing check on the Ranger. The halfling was restricted to using Medium weapons 2-handed, and forbidden from Great weapons. Any ideas on something in the spirit of the Ranger class that is of equal restriction/inhibitor?

I'm hesitant to put weapon restrictions, because it would present the same irrational conundrum as adding armour restrictions - it makes sense when the restrictions are due to height requirements (halfling), but you can't do it to a man-sized ranger when the Magic-user hasn't been so restricted.

How about:
Ranger abilities (i.e. AC bonus, Bushcraft, Aim (see below)) only work when lightly- or un-encumbered

Last edited by timmyd (2011-08-18 17:02:41)

Re: Human-only Setting - Variant classes to replace demi-humans

David wrote:

First, I would give the Ranger and Barbarian an Attack bonus of +1 at first level like everyone else and have them get additional bonuses of +1 at 3rd, 6th, 9th. 12th, 15th, and 18th levels. The other thing I'd do is have the progressing bonuses they get during advancement apply only to melee for the Barbarian and only missile attacks for the Ranger.

I completely agree with the importance of maintaining the sanctity of Fighter as the master of combat. I like your idea of giving the barbarian enhanced melee, and the ranger enhanced missile, but I don't want to add increasing Attack bonuses into the mix.

But you got me thinking... and here's my idea.

Barbarian: When making a Press attack, gain +4 to-hit instead of +2.

Ranger: When using Aim for missile attacks, gain +8 to-hit instead of +4.

Re: Human-only Setting - Variant classes to replace demi-humans

I don't like the idea of messing about with the combat mechanics of Press and Aim. Press is setup to lose more than you gain so you have to really want the attack bonus to sacrifice the AC. I'm guessing Jim play-tested this a lot before he settled on the numbers and even if he didn't, it fits the mood he's trying to create, so I don't feel comfortable changing it.

I think doubling  the Aim bonus for Rangers would be crazy. That gives a Ranger with average Dex a +10 attack bonus (class Dex mod, base attack bonus and extra 8) at first level if he aims. That seems excessive. Under the progressing bonus model I have above the same Ranger would need to be 12th level to get that bonus when Aiming. A fighter would need to be 4th level. The nice thing about increasing attack bonuses is it fits within what is already working.

I think to convince Rangers to stay away from great weapons and such, a mix of not being able to use their Stealth or Bushcraft when more than lightly encumbered mixed with a double encumbrance penalty on oversized items (other than the longbow) should be enough. Rangers travel light. Can you really picture a Ranger stalking through the woods with a ten-foot pole?

Or don't worry about it and just remove the Ranger's increased Dex modifier if you think they are too powerful. They are only human, after all.

Re: Human-only Setting - Variant classes to replace demi-humans

David wrote:

I'm guessing Jim play-tested this a lot before he settled on the numbers and even if he didn't, it fits the mood he's trying to create, so I don't feel comfortable changing it.

Yet you would advocate to add improving attack bonus to the Dwarf/Barbarian and Halfling/Ranger? Baffling. In the end, I'll probably just avoid either path and leave the classes alone, tinkering with as little as possible.

I have not been a fan of the ideas I have seen on this forum to give Dwarfs (and Elves and Halflings?) increasing attack bonuses.

David wrote:

I think doubling  the Aim bonus for Rangers would be crazy. That gives a Ranger with average Dex a +10 attack bonus (class Dex mod, base attack bonus and extra 8) at first level if he aims. That seems excessive.

When using Aim, the character must spend the entire round in aiming - no moving, no Dex bonus to AC - and therefore only gets to fire 1/2 as often. A decent compromise I think. Regardless, I'll probably just scrap any such fighting enhancements to either class.

I like your ideas for restricting the Ranger, though - only have the special abilities be usable when traveling light.

Re: Human-only Setting - Variant classes to replace demi-humans

timmyd wrote:

Yet you would advocate to add improving attack bonus to the Dwarf/Barbarian and Halfling/Ranger? Baffling. In the end, I'll probably just avoid either path and leave the classes alone, tinkering with as little as possible.

I have not been a fan of the ideas I have seen on this forum to give Dwarfs (and Elves and Halflings?) increasing attack bonuses.

Yes, on the surface that certainly makes me look pretty inconsistent and maybe a little crazy. I thought my progression was a nice compromise to settle the complaints that the other fighter types were getting short changed. It's a minor improvement that throws a bone to the people that need it without unbalancing the game and creating a need for better monsters. At 3rd level the Fighter is +4 and the Barbarian or Dwarf is only +2. At 6th level the Barbarian/Dwarf has finally achieved +3 and the Fighter is +7. It becomes even less significant as they progress. The Ranger/Halfling has the same problem but is also hobbled with a finite number of arrows; a problem exacerbated by his/her need to travel light.

I agree with you and think it's dangerous to change too much as far as attack bonus is concerned. I just thought this minor tweak could make the players of the other fighting classes happy without messing everything up. Significant bonuses (like the 1/2 suggested by many) would cause the GM/Ref problems because he'd need to up the power/number of monsters to compensate and that would leave clerics and specialists feeling underpowered. It's a pretty vicious circle.

Anyway, good luck with your human-only setting! After all this talk about it, I think I'll probably have a go at one too, at least for a one-shot.

Re: Human-only Setting - Variant classes to replace demi-humans

David wrote:

Yes, on the surface that certainly makes me look pretty inconsistent and maybe a little crazy.

Well, we are all grown men who are still fascinated with playing make-believe, so all of us are more than a little crazy.

David wrote:

I just thought this minor tweak could make the players of the other fighting classes happy without messing everything up. Significant bonuses (like the 1/2 suggested by many) would cause the GM/Ref problems because he'd need to up the power/number of monsters to compensate and that would leave clerics and specialists feeling underpowered. It's a pretty vicious circle.

Another excellent analysis of the root cause >> consequences cycle. While I have also considered the escalating attack bonuses for dwarf/barbarian and halfling/ranger (see my earliest posts in this thread), I will strive to keep things simple.

I will post details of my upcoming setting on this forum. Hopefully, the opening of Conan in movie theatres this weekend will give a boost to interest in such settings.

Re: Human-only Setting - Variant classes to replace demi-humans

I've had a busy summer and haven't had the chance to check these forums, but I just saw this and wanted to say that I'm running a human-only setting (for the time being) and this is all really fascinating stuff. I'm about to go on an internetless vacation for a week but will definitely be printing this out to think about and test while I'm away. Thanks!

Last edited by Errant Tiger (2011-08-22 07:35:49)

Campaign blog: http://deadlake.wordpress.com
Other, rarely updated blog: http://tigerchamber.wordpress.com

Re: Human-only Setting - Variant classes to replace demi-humans

I know no one has posted here in a while, but I was prepping my human-only setting and I realized we missed a pretty important detail.

The one thing we never talked about adjusting was the saving throws. Demi-human saves are WAY better than the corresponding human ones! They start better than humans and then advance faster. Unless you can think of a good reason for your Ranger Class to have 2,2,2,2,4 saves at 8th level when a regular fighter of the same level has 10, 8, 9, 9, 12 you need to make some serious adjustments to the save tables.

Now that I get a good look at this I'm wondering why demi-humans have such wonderful saves to begin with. I may start a new thread on this one.

Re: Human-only Setting - Variant classes to replace demi-humans

Ed Dove wrote:

I thought we were trying to change the classes as little as possible, so we were trying to create human classes with the same saving throws as the demi-human classes they'd replace.  So I thought Barbarians, Exotics & Rangers would have the same saving throws as Dwarfs, Elves & Halflings because they'd be just as tough, mystical or elusive as Dwarfs, Elves & Halflings are.

Thanks for jumping in, Ed, you took the words right out of my mouth.

A little hand-waving goes a long way, and you must do this if you want to avoid rocking the boat too much.

For the record, I'm not giving the Ranger or Barbarian advancing attack bonuses. It doesn't work like that in the core rules, so I'm not going to mess with it here either.

Re: Human-only Setting - Variant classes to replace demi-humans

Does the Exotic still suffer/benefit from spells in the same way as the Elf?

If so, what would be the rationalization?

Re: Human-only Setting - Variant classes to replace demi-humans

Ed Dove wrote:
Lord Inar wrote:

Does the Exotic still suffer/benefit from spells in the same way as the Elf?

If so, what would be the rationalization?

Yes.

The way I've been imagining it, the Exotic is some weird foreigner who's so mystically tuned-in to Chaos that he can do magic one-handed in heavy armor.  So, while he's not actually a creature born of Chaos like an Elf, he's still so connected to Chaos that he's affected by everything just like an Elf would be.

(I'd been assuming that the only significant difference between an Exotic and an Elf is that an Exotic ages as normal for a human.  But, hey, maybe Exotics are so mystical that they don't even age.)

Ed, you've done a masterful job with this one, and even convinced me to use it in my campaign, although I'm not keen on the class name.

To the thesaurus!

Re: Human-only Setting - Variant classes to replace demi-humans

Illuminatus? not really a common term, but descriptive (enlightened one)

Warrior/Mage? Less inspired but it gets the point across. And in literature, who were the great warrior/mages but those who were tainted with chaos: Elric and Kane?

Re: Human-only Setting - Variant classes to replace demi-humans

Just to bring you all up to speed on what I ended up doing with my group that kicked off two weeks ago:

Barbarian (based on Dwarf)
- Advance in Climb instead of Architecture
- Double benefit with Press attack option (i.e. +4 to-hit)

Ranger (based on Halfling)
- No weapon restrictions
- Special benefits only work when un- or lightly-encumbered (i.e. AC bonus when not surprised, and advanced Stealth)
- Extra benefit when using Aim for missile attacks (i.e. +6 to-hit)

I just abandoned finding an Elf replacement due to the odd nature of it. I may bring it back into my campaign if I find some inspiration. Right now the Cleric doesn't exist, and the Sorcerer is a magic-user with a modified spell list that includes most of the Cleric spells.

I expected some resistance from the players at the limited number of class options, but nobody blinked and everyone is having a good time.

Re: Human-only Setting - Variant classes to replace demi-humans

I know this thread seemed to have run it's course but I was never satisfied with the human class substitute for the Elf class and the other day I had an idea:

The Elf could be played pretty much as it is written in the rules if we call it the Diabolist (Carcosa already has a Sorcerer class) and give it a couple of weird tweaks.

Basically, these spellcasters have made a dark pact of some kind to learn their magic. Because of that, they cast in different ways from the regular magic users who learned it the hard way, so Diabolists can cast while encumbered by armour. They have a few extra-demensional entities "riding" their souls so they are affected by spells in the same ways as the Elf (immune to Charm and Sleep, no benefit from Bless etc). Also, the voices in their heads makes it more difficult for them to be surprised (1 chance in 6) and gives them a better search skill (which progresses as levels increase and more voices join in...). Obviously they have a Chaotic alignment.

All this is a merely a new explanation for the current writeup for the class. I think it would be fun to make changes to how they learn spells.

Because of how they originally learned their skills there is no guarantee the Diabolist knows the Read Magic spell. He would start with 1D3+1 random spells at first level.

A diabolist could still transcribe a spell from a scroll in the same way as a Magic User but it would take the spell level times 2D6 days because of their lack of discipline; it's just harder for them.

They don't research spells though. Each time a Diabolist levels he/she gets a chance to perform a ritual to learn a new spell. The DM may determine if the ritual has to be completed before levelling again or be lost. Personally, I don't see why they should have to do it right away as they'd have lots of good reasons to want to wait.

The ritual would be fast, taking level times 1D6 hours to complete. As usual the PC would decide how long to spend on the ritual before completing it. In that time the the PC won't know if he/she has attracted the entity so it is still as chancy as the method used by the Magic User. The Diabolist concludes the ritual by killing a sacrifice. The sacrifice has to be a least a kind of medium-sized mammal (like a goat or dog) to bind the entity. If an entity is bound to the Diabolist he/she then spends 2D6 hours unconscious experiencing horrific nightmares as he/she fights for control of his body and soul. The character has to save vs Spells. If he/she fails the save he/she is marked by the entity. Some change that identifies them as servants of Chaos. Something like horns, vestigial/useless wings, cloven feet, a random and unnatural skin colour, etc. Kev actually came up with a great table in his Class Adjustments thread that would be a fantastic place to start. Once the character wakes up, he/she can add one random spell of the desired level spell to his/her Spellbook in a mad frenzy of activity. The costs of the ritual and transcription would be the double what a Magic User would roll for transcribing a spell (ie 20 sp per hour of ritual).

Now just to add a darker element to the class, a human could be sacrificed for an advantage in the ritual. If a human sacrifice is used, the Diabolist either gets a +2 to the Save vs Spells or a second randomly determined spell.

To learn a specific spell or create a new one a human sacrifice would be necessary and would give no extra bonuses. The time to attract an entity with such specific knowledge increases the time and cost of the ritual. Going up to level time 3D6 hours and requiring 30 sp per hour in materials. DMs may require Con checks or Poison saves to for the character to stay awake long enough to complete the ritual. If the Diabolist falls asleep, he/she doesn't lose the one chance per level, but does need to start over with new materials (with the exception of the sacrifice, unless it escapes while the Diabolist is asleep). The DM could still require the save vs Spells though, as the current entities riding the character's soul take advantage of his/her weakness to mark him again.

It wouldn't take long before the character was wearing loose clothing, gloves and a heavy, hooded cloak. I wouldn't mark them at first level, but I would have other clues to how they are just a little off. Things like dogs always barking at them or horses don't like them (maybe add 1d6x10% to the cost of a mount to reflect the difficulty in finding one that will let a Diabolist ride it).

So I think that solves the human/elf class problem with a weird fantasy twist. Let me know what you think.



Here's the link to Kev's table I mentioned earlier:

http://www.lotfp.com/RPG/discussion/top … justments/

Re: Human-only Setting - Variant classes to replace demi-humans

Thanks Ed, you make some good points!

I like the extra time for transcription because it means it's harder for them to do it the "honest" way but not impossible. I set the cost of the rituals low for the same reason. I wanted to make it a much easier way to gain magical knowledge through direct contact with Chaos so it's attractive. The real costs come with the slow transformation of PC. Also, the PC has to find a way to do this in secret. It's not like he/she can sacrifice a goat in his/her room in the inn without attracting the kind of attention that would get him'/her burned at the stake.

I like the need to write the spell down right away. Almost as though they are vomiting the forbidden knowledge onto the page. As for Read Magic, they don't need it for their awn spellbook, just everyone else's.

Your last comment makes sense. Those two things could just be added into a D20 table of marks. Maybe the player rolls or even chooses a single mark at first level. That way they start of the game, as you say, "a bit more exactly like an Elf."

Re: Human-only Setting - Variant classes to replace demi-humans

I've been calling the Dwarf a Brute and switching their Architecture bonus to Open Doors. I always pictured them as the guys who win bar fights not because they hit the other guy more (though they still get those fighting options), but because they just take a god awful amount of punishment without going down. Like Homer in that one Simpsons episode where he's a boxer, he only wins because everyone else gets tired of breaking his face in.

Dwarf > Brute
Architecture > Open Doors
Preserve Encumbrance
Preserve Fighting Options

The Halfling became a Vagabond with 5 in climb and 3 in languages. They have a knack for getting into places they shouldn't be, and because of all their travelling have experience with a lot of languages. You can preserve the weapon encumbrances as a Vagabond needs to be able to move quickly to get out of any trouble he's been in.

Halfling > Vagabond
Stealth > Climb
Bushcraft > Languages
Preserve Weapon Limits
Preserve Dex Bonus

The Elf was the only one I could never get a good substitute for, but I like the Diabolist and all it's fluff. The only thing I noticed is that you did away with the Fighting bonuses. Was that intentional or did I just miss it?

My Blog, New and Updated Super Infrequently: http://theburningtorch.blogspot.com/

Re: Human-only Setting - Variant classes to replace demi-humans

Hey Golempuddy!

I like your vagabond and brute classes!

I left the fighting bonuses out for the Diabolist because I wasn't going to change them from the original elf class. They can parry and press just as effectively as the Elf. I don't think I would add any level based bonuses to hit for the diabolist either because it doesn't fit and could unbalance the game. They are focussed on the quick path to power through diabolical magic, extra training with weapons seems like a waste of time for such characters.

Last edited by David (2012-03-10 09:39:28)