This issue offered readers a third proposed class: the cavalier. Described as a "sub-class of fighter ... in service to some deity, noble, order, or special cause," the cavalier was basically a knight, drawing on both historical orders of knighthood and those from legend and literature. Much like the paladin, with whom it shares many similarities (more on that soon), the cavalier has hefty ability score requirements for entrance (STR, DEX, and CON 15+, INT and WIS 10+), as well as belonging to the right social class. A cavalier must initially be good in alignment, whether lawful, chaotic, or neutral, though he may shift away from goodness before 4th level without penalty, which I always thought was an odd detail.
Unlike the paladin, which is a human-only class, the cavalier admits humans, elves, and half-elves, all of whom have the potential for unlimited advancement. The class is focused on mounted combat, which, while appropriate based on its inspirations, would seem to limit its utility in dungeon-focused adventures. No matter: cavalier get numerous other useful abilities, such as combat parries, improved saves against fear, impressive starting equipment (a consequence of their high station), weapon specialization, and, perhaps most remarkable of all, ability improvement. Every time a cavalier gains a level, he rolls 2d10 and adds the result as a note after his Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores. When the total from these rolls reaches 100 for any ability, it increases by 1 point.
Needless to say, the cavalier was quite a popular class among my friends and I at the time issue #72 appeared. I'd long been seeking an "official" AD&D knight class, so the cavalier scratched a longstanding itch of mine. That the class Gygax presented was also incredibly potent, possessing multiple powerful abilities, was just icing on the cake. Compared to the fighter, of which it was a sub-class, the cavalier was just better in almost every way, especially, if as was usually the case, one were not too strict about the rolling of ability scores for new characters. Consequently, I saw a lot of cavalier characters for a while, both in my own games and in those of friends. I can't say I really blamed anyone for this, in light of the class's power. Plus, it had the imprimatur of Gary Gygax, so who could argue against its inclusion?
Over time, quite a lot of us fell out of love with the cavalier. The truth was that, as presented here – and, later, in Unearthed Arcana – the class was simply out of whack with those in the Players Handbook. Perhaps, I thought, once Gygax completed his full revision of AD&D, it might be more in line with the overall power level of the game, but, until then, it was simply too much. This was doubly true of cavalier-paladins, which combined the abilities of both classes – what was Gygax thinking? Yes, it's true that there were various social restrictions placed on cavaliers through their code of honor that might, in principle, keep them in line, but, as kids, that was rarely sufficient to rein them in. I soon forbade cavaliers from my games and hardly anyone complained about it.
Looking back on this article now, it's pretty clear that, by 1983, Gygax's conception of AD&D was in the process of shifting considerably from his original vision. On some level, I can't really blame him. By this time, he'd been playing some version of D&D for over a decade, so it was probably inevitable that he'd want to do something different than he'd done before. Everything he was writing around this time suggests that he was becoming increasingly interested in a more high-powered kind of fantasy, one whose characters were personally powerful and whose adventures involved high stakes and equally powerful foes. Again, I cannot blame him for this. Having refereed my House of Worms campaign for a similar length of time, I know only too well the temptations of going Big, sometimes to the detriment of the game itself.
That's more or less how I look at the cavalier and most of the Gygax-penned material that first appeared in Dragon and later in Unearthed Arcana: experiments gone wrong. Many of them seemed like better ideas than they turned out to be. "Even Homer nods," as the saying goes, and so it was with Gygax and the cavalier.
These new character classes all parallel the D&D cartoon of the time.
ReplyDeleteI never saw any of the Dragon articles at the time but very happily bought Unearthed Arcana. I felt the Thief-Acrobat was disappointing and none of my players showed any interest. I've rewritten it recently to make it more playable. I liked both Cavalier and Barbarian, and had players run each. I now consider the Cavalier a little overpowered. The Barbarian concept was great, but we all felt unplayable in a party with a wizard if you followed the restrictions given. This could have been the basis for a lot of in-game role-playing in some respects: "I'm not a wizard, really, I'm a... a... a priest of boccob!" "Take this sword, it shines because it was made with lost elven lore. The wi... priest checked that its not enchanted!"
ReplyDeleteThe cavalier seems like an obvious class, at least if one is already slicing the Fighter archetype into Rangers, Paladins, Barbarians, etc. But I haven't played in a D&D or D&D-like game where something like it has been used, just explicitly magical Paladins and similar.
ReplyDeleteI've read Adventures Dark and Deep and The Heroic Legendarium, both of which made the cavalier more reasonable. But both still seemed much stronger than a regular fighter and still had very high ability score requirements.
The knight class in Castles & Crusades looks like an interesting version, but might not really be "old school" as he can bestow to-hit bonuses just by being nearby and looking inspiring.
I'm one of those that thinks that, in retrospect, the UA was mostly an error, the additional classes being the biggest part, probably.
ReplyDeleteSo you could say I'm pretty "glad" that Gary did not get to work on his vision of 2e.
So far I think that OSRIC has turned out to be the best possible AD&D2e we could ever get.
Speaking of Unearthed: I found two old totes in storage last year. This Dragon edition was there, in so-close-to-mint condition (the binding/staples were very very slightly loose) that I marveled at it.
ReplyDeleteI remember arguing with my dopey friends nearly forty years ago about whether the two women were twins, since they were curiously both left-handed.
The cover was killer. I found the rest somewhat lackluster. Like others here we couldn't really play a straight Cavalier and have it sing with the other adventurers.
Ultimately only Druids and Illusionists ever really fit our teenage campaigns. We couldn't really harness a slash-class either, although we might have tried a Fighter/Magic-User with limited success and endless grumbling.
I rigorously enforce 3d6-in-order set-in-stone for ability score generation. Given that, here are the chances of rolling Gary's new classes:
ReplyDeletebarbarian: 1 in 830
thief-acrobat: 1 in 269
cavalier: 1 in 3,381
cavalier-paladin: 1 in 420,061
hunter (from Realms of Adventure #2, Fall 1988): 1 in 5,119)
If a player is lucky enough to roll one of those classes, he deserves all the crazy powers that come with it. This extreme rarity will keep such a character class from screwing-up a campaign and instead be a source of spice.