|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 24, 2010 9:02:39 GMT -6
I know this subject has been discussed many times already, and yes, I did go back and read a few of those previous discussions before posting this. I also acknowledge that most folks will have long ago made up their minds on this, and may not be particularly interested in being convinced otherwise. Despite this, and all the commentary about cavalry switching between mounted and foot, and multi-classing being an experimental concept and so on, it's still unclear to me where the notion of Elves switching from one class to another in OD&D comes from. I may well be looking right through it, but if it's in the 3LBBs it is pretty hard to find. I just went back and re-read Men & Magic (again), paying particular attention to what it actually says about Elves on page 8. It says: This passage maybe somewhat ambiguous, perhaps, but it is not remarkably more impenetrable than the rest of the text. I'm sure any number of the good folks here will set me straight on this shortly, but what this passage does not say anywhere is that when an Elf "switches" to magic-user he abandons all of his fighting prowess -- or that when an Elf "switches" back to fighter he abandons all of his magical powers. What page 8 does state explicitly is "Thus, they gain the benefits of both classes and may use both weaponry and spells. They may use magic armor and still act as Magic-Users.". That says -- almost as directly as anything in the LBBs -- that Elves are magic-users and fighters at the same time. The other main entry concerning Elves in the 3LBBs (page 16 of Monsters & Treasure) has this to say; Meaning that every encountered dual classed Elf will be bow, spear and sword wielding, which implies that an Elf has both fighting and magical capabilities at once. Why else would a high level Elvish leader (who can no longer advance as a fighter and so must logically be in magic-user mode) be carrying weapons only allowed to fighting-men? Doubtless others will disagree, but I figure that the whole affair could be smoothed out with the following minor addition on page 8:
"Elves can begin as either Fighting-Men or Magic-Users and freely switch class for purposes of gaining experience
only whenever they choose, from adventure to adventure, but not during the course of a single game."
The additional clause is identical to that used in the discussion of experience point bonuses on page 10 of Men & Magic. Its insertion here would mean Elves only earn experience points toward one class at a time, but otherwise act as a fighter and a magic user simultaneously -- the way Elves were meant to be  |
|
|
|
Post by bdfiscus on Apr 24, 2010 10:10:51 GMT -6
I like it.
Just a couple questions though:
How would the elf fight ?
I would stipulate that with all weapons other than daggers; he fights at whatever level he has gained as a fighter.
otherwise; there is little incentive to ever put experience points into his fighter class.. as a 1-5 level Mu fights as good as a 1-3 level fighter.
I suppose if you had a lot of 1 HD and below creatures in your adventures the might put levels in fighter to get more attacks per round against them.
What HD would you use for the elf ? The HD for whatever class he is currently gaining XP in ? would he roll for new hp each time he switched classes ? or does he just always use the highest HD ?
|
|
|
|
Post by TheMyth on Apr 24, 2010 11:05:48 GMT -6
I like it. Just a couple questions though: How would the elf fight ? I would stipulate that with all weapons other than daggers; he fights at whatever level he has gained as a fighter. otherwise; there is little incentive to ever put experience points into his fighter class.. as a 1-5 level Mu fights as good as a 1-3 level fighter. I suppose if you had a lot of 1 HD and below creatures in your adventures the might put levels in fighter to get more attacks per round against them. What HD would you use for the elf ? The HD for whatever class he is currently gaining XP in ? would he roll for new hp each time he switched classes ? or does he just always use the highest HD ? Gaining levels as a fighter allows the elf to gain hit dice more rapidly and allows better saves at 4th level (a Magic-User's saves do not advance until at least 6th). So, even if an Elf can start as a Fighting-Mn 1/ Magic-User 1, there's still some compunction for a player to max out as a Fighting-Man early (if s/he so desires). |
|
|
|
Post by greyharp on Apr 24, 2010 14:54:28 GMT -6
While an elf can advance as both a fighting-man and magic-user, there's nothing in the rules to say he must do both. If an elf should decide to focus only on being a magic-user, he will still be a 1st level fighting-man in respect to those characteristics that are superior (but will have 0 xp for that class). And as a magic-user, he can still employ the arms and armour of a fighting-man, but can only cast spells if the latter is magical. Just as an elf who decided to follow only the fighting-man path would still be a 1st level magic-user and reap the benefits of that - improved saves vs Stone, Staves & Spells for the 1st three levels, and the ability to cast 1st level spells.
So I would agree, elves are both magic-users and fighting-men (even if they decide to only adventure as one or the other), only gain xp's one class at a time, and only swap class-focus in order to gain xp's for each particular class.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 24, 2010 20:56:21 GMT -6
That makes perfect sense to me waysoftheearth, but I think Greyharp has touched on the tricky bit: So I would agree, elves are both magic-users and fighting-men (even if they decide to only adventure as one or the other), only gain xp's one class at a time, and only swap class-focus in order to gain xp's for each particular class. So, looking closely at the rule it doesn't really say the player has to declare or choose ahead of time what "class" they are going to be, but that they can only be (acting as) one in and adventure. In fact, choosing ahead of time to adventure as a fighter when you are still perfectly free to cast magic makes no sense. I think you make a good case that it does, mean that the class choice is only for experience points, but if so it must come after the adventure is over and then somebody has got to decide which class skills the elf actualy utilized most in the adventure. The player may want to dump all thier points into the fighter class, but if during the adventure they cast a lot of spells and fought very little, that makes no sense. So that means the DM is going to have to make the determination as to which class should get the points at the end of the adventure based on what the Elf actually did, and that means that some kind of tallying system would be needed - fights engaged in vs. spells cast or some such. It would also mean that once one class is maxed out the elf might not get any experience at all for a given adventure if they continued to use those skills most. I don't have a solution - just posing the problem here.  |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 24, 2010 21:24:51 GMT -6
How would the elf fight ? I would rule that an Elf uses the better of either his magic-user level or fighting-man level when it comes to the attack and save matrices. By this interpretation it follows that a beginning Elf character would simultaneously be a 1st level magic-user and and 1st level fighting-man. Thus if he didn't wear armour (or was lucky enough to have some magic armour) he could cast a magic-user spell and fight with bow and sword -- or any weapon (as a fighting-man). If he preferred the protection of non-magical armour, he would forgo his 1st level magic-user spell casting ability. |
|
|
|
Post by greyharp on Apr 24, 2010 21:26:40 GMT -6
I don't have a solution - just posing the problem here. But there is no problem if the elf mechanic is only there to "freely switch class for purposes of gaining experience only". The only reason the choice is made is to decide which class to give the xp's to. In that case there is no need to try and break down elf actions into separate classes, especially in light of the fact that "they gain the benefits of both classes and may use both weaponry and spells. They may use magic armor and still act as Magic-Users." So unlike a human magic-user, they can can use a fighter's weapons and wear magical armour - and still cast spells. And unlike a human fighter, they can cast spells. That says strongly to me that there's no need to separate the fighting-man and magic-user classes when dealing with elves - they do both at the same time - EXCEPT for the purposes of gaining experience only. As I said, "no problem". |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 24, 2010 21:36:45 GMT -6
So that means the DM is going to have to make the determination as to which class should get the points at the end of the adventure based on what the Elf actually did, and that means that some kind of tallying system would be needed - fights engaged in vs. spells cast or some such. It would also mean that once one class is maxed out the elf might not get any experience at all for a given adventure if they continued to use those skills most. I don't have a solution - just posing the problem here. I don't have a solution either, but I would not bother tracking what the Elf did or did not do during an adventure. Neither would I prevent a fighting-man from advancing in that class if he were to successfully complete an adventure without ever fighting a foe. If you have an issue with "what the Elf actually did" for his XP you might (as a referee) rule that as soon as an Elvish PC decides to advance in the second class, he is thereafter "dual-classed" and simply divides all earned experience equally between both classes. This could eventually mean that a "dual-classed" Elf would only progress as a magic-user at half rate after reaching the Hero level because 50% of his earned XP would still be wasted on the fighting-man class which might be seen as a kind of "compensation" for his early advantage -- although this approach is not exactly "freely switching class whenever they choose". |
|
|
|
Post by TheMyth on Apr 24, 2010 21:37:48 GMT -6
That makes perfect sense to me waysoftheearth, but I think Greyharp has touched on the tricky bit: So I would agree, elves are both magic-users and fighting-men (even if they decide to only adventure as one or the other), only gain xp's one class at a time, and only swap class-focus in order to gain xp's for each particular class. So, looking closely at the rule it doesn't really say the player has to declare or choose ahead of time what "class" they are going to be, but that they can only be (acting as) one in and adventure. In fact, choosing ahead of time to adventure as a fighter when you are still perfectly free to cast magic makes no sense. I think you make a good case that it does, mean that the class choice is only for experience points, but if so it must come after the adventure is over and then somebody has got to decide which class skills the elf actualy utilized most in the adventure. The player may want to dump all thier points into the fighter class, but if during the adventure they cast a lot of spells and fought very little, that makes no sense. So that means the DM is going to have to make the determination as to which class should get the points at the end of the adventure based on what the Elf actually did, and that means that some kind of tallying system would be needed - fights engaged in vs. spells cast or some such. It would also mean that once one class is maxed out the elf might not get any experience at all for a given adventure if they continued to use those skills most. I don't have a solution - just posing the problem here. But this isn't really a problem. This is just one interpretation of a rule...which doesn't exist. There's nothing in the wording of the elf's description that suggests the experience MUST be awarded to whichever "class skills" are used most. In fact, the wording suggests just the opposite: "Elves begin as either Fighting-Men or Magic-Users" "can freely switch class whenever they choose, from adventure to adventure, but not during the course of a single game" "they gain the benefit of both classes and may use both weaponry and spells" So, elves begin as either FM or MU. To me this suggests they have zero xp in both and choose one to gain xp in when they start adventuring. Effectively they are FM1/MU1 since they can freely use both weapons and spells (as long as they wear magic armor or no armor). The player has the option (of their free choice, not DM's choice) to switch the elf's xp-earning class so long as the party is "back at the inn" or whatever. And I do read this to mean that the player must choose beforehand. So, since elves can always cast spells and use any weapon at all times, the only real difference is which class gets the xp for advancement purposes. And the player chooses that "between adventures." It's really clear to me why Gygax restructured multi-classing in AD&D because people probably always have added in their own odd interpretations to this very vague description. No wonder Holmes and Moldvay went the combo-class route. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 25, 2010 9:49:27 GMT -6
I was quite sleepy when I wrote that post so one thing I wasn't thinking of is that as the player allocates the exp to one class they will advance in ability in that class only, so "what they actually did in an adventure" probably doesn't matter much after 1st level.
Okay, you guys have convinced me that the original intention of the rules is to allow the player to put the experience points in whichever class desired as a game choice. I'm hestating on how justified the idea is versus Holmes "advance as both". Maybe the idea for me hinges upon how much leveling up in OD&D is supposed to include between adventure training. Opinions? rule citations anyone?
|
|
capheind
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 236
|
Post by capheind on Apr 25, 2010 10:08:11 GMT -6
What about making them pick a starting class, and only allowing them to "unlock" the other class' first level when they can find the implements of that class? Since elves live so long perchance they are trained in the basics of combat and magic during their extended childhoods, but its all basically book-lernin until they actually get their hands dirty. Gaining his first fighter level might require getting himself a fine bow or a good fast sword, or if he starts as a fighter maybe becoming a MU of the first level would require he find a spell book. Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by greyharp on Apr 25, 2010 16:49:30 GMT -6
I'm hestating on how justified the idea is versus Holmes "advance as both". Maybe the idea for me hinges upon how much leveling up in OD&D is supposed to include between adventure training. Opinions? rule citations anyone? The 3LB don't mention anything like that, I can't comment on the supplements. |
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 345
|
Post by jacar on Apr 26, 2010 13:36:53 GMT -6
I prefer the Holmes-esque way of handling this. This is my Elf class.
Fights as a fighting man and casts and a Magic user. He must gain experience for BOTH classes before moving up to the next level. He may wear chain armor and use swords, spears and bows. He may cast with armor on but must have both hands free to do it.
What this does is makes a character able to do both classes but will lag behind the party by one level. On top of that, this character will have a "hell" level at 1st level. The elf will gain second level when the party gains 3rd level.
To determine how much experience is required, add the two experience point totals for a given level. Example, to get to 2nd level, the Elf would need 4500 experience points. For hit points, roll a D6.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 2, 2010 2:37:18 GMT -6
Greyhawk (page 5) has this to say about Elves;
Which implies that in the 3LBB era (sans thief) Elves were intended to work in their two categories as once -- fighter/magic-users. With the addition of greyhawk (and the thief class), Elves could now work in three categories at once -- fighter/magic-user/thief -- or else elect to be only a thief.
It now also states explicitly that experience is "distributed proportionately" among the classes -- which may (or may not) be read as a clarification of the very same issue we were discussing above.
Even more convincingly (in my view), it adds this about Half-Elves;
Half Elves act as Elves do. And Half Elves progress simultaneously in both the fighter and magic-user classes and may use both weaponry and spells. And therefore, so must Elves.
|
|
|
|
Post by achijusan on May 2, 2010 5:06:39 GMT -6
That is how I have always seen elves played;
Though never having played in an ODnD "3-LBB only game" probably explains it.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 2, 2010 7:48:19 GMT -6
So that's essentially the same as the Holmes Elf, right? "Proportional" meaning the experience points are being split between the classes (similar to Paleologos method in the Holmes thread odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=holmes&action=display&thread=3062 ) So that would seem to contradict the whole "switch class" reference. It shouldn't mean, as you have pointed out, that the elf loses abilities in one class, but should mean "put all points in one chosen class" and that contradicts Greyhawk. So it looks very much like either we either have a difference between the authors Gygax and Arneson (or perhaps some playtester input) in the 3LBB's or Gygax changed his mind when he penned Greyhawk (which is certainly possible but seems less likely since he must have begun writing it shortly after the 3LBBs were published if not sooner.) What say you all? Have I missed something? |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 2, 2010 17:36:04 GMT -6
I am just a hobbyist with no particularly special insight into the matter, but my guess is that the additional text given in Greyhawk was an intentional amendment.
The author must have received many questions about Elves (as presented in the 3LBBs) which would almost certainly have resulted in some rethinking. Greyhawk was the next opportunity to clear the matter up in writing.
The term "proportional" is somewhat ambiguous, but the text (in Greyhawk) also goes on to state that XP should be divided exactly evenly between classes, and also that when the maximum level has been reached in one class, any further XP allocated to that class is "wasted", thus slowing further progression in the other classes.
I don't have the books on hand, but I will post the exact passage tonight.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on May 2, 2010 18:24:54 GMT -6
If you play it as "just for experience", then you've got the question of how to do hit points (the most significant determinant of fighting ability), as well as saving throws and hit rolls.
It is probably optimal, under this interpretation, to "max out" the fighter class first so as to have the benefits while developing the magic-user class mainly for spells (and eventually for some saves).
That is definitely more powerful than having to lose fighting power when going from F 4 to MU 5, or fighting and magic when going from MU 6 to F 3.
It is also a lot more advantageous than having to divide x.p. evenly, even when a class has hit its limit.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 4, 2010 5:00:33 GMT -6
I don't have the books on hand, but I will post the exact passage tonight. Greyhawk, page 5; (emphasis added). Greyhawk, page 5; (emphasis added). Greyhawk, page 6; (emphasis added). It seems likely that the intent is the same for all demi-Humans, even though the exact wording differs slightly by race. |
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on May 18, 2010 7:19:39 GMT -6
While I can easily see how the intent may have changed between the original LBBs and Greyhawk, I must admit to being mightily taken by the idea of having elves, etc. declare where their experience points are going for each adventure. This would allow a certain amount of emphasis for play purposes. (I will also admit it seems similar to how 3rd Ed. operates.)
At the risk of making this more complicated than it needs to be, I might suggest striking a balance between the two notions. If an elf is a Fighter/Magic-User, each class gets 10% of the experience gained in an adventure; the player then decides which class will get the remaining 80% for that adventure, ahead of time. If the elf is three different classes, the base amount goes to 20%. So a Ftr/MU/Thief would get 20%/20%/60%.
This is probably too complicated.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabindranath72 on Aug 5, 2010 3:17:10 GMT -6
I think the problem with free allocation of XPs lies in the fact that if there are more than, say, two levels of difference, the geometric progressions of the classes clash with the acquisition of XPs, so that the class with the smallest level tends to advance quite fast; if, say, 3,000XPs are negligible for a 7th level character, they are not for a 1st or 2nd level one.
The Holmes idea of "joint" progression based on one of the classes is interesting, but it does not generalise well (in a consistent way) to three class combinations.
Which raises the question: how do you advance (in terms of HD) a three class Elf, say fighter/magic-user/thief?
Cheers,
Antonio
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 5, 2010 5:46:27 GMT -6
But on the other hand, rabindranath72, is it really such a problem if, among a party of 7th level PCs, the Elven 5th/2nd level fighter/magic-user "cheaply" advances to 5th/3rd? Gaining the use of 2nd level spells is hardly as significant an advantage at 7th level as it would have been at 3rd level, after all.
As for HD, you could (among other options) go the OD&D way; roll hit points for each class separately and take the best result, or the AD&D way; roll hit points for each class separately and divide each result by the number of classes and adding them all up (and rounding).
|
|
|
|
Post by rabindranath72 on Aug 5, 2010 6:00:33 GMT -6
But on the other hand, rabindranath72, is it really such a problem if, among a party of 7th level PCs, the Elven 5th/2nd level fighter/magic-user "cheaply" advances to 5th/3rd? Gaining the use of 2nd level spells is hardly as significant an advantage at 7th level as it would have been at 3rd level, after all. As for HD, you could (among other options) go the OD&D way; roll hit points for each class separately and take the best result, or the AD&D way; roll hit points for each class separately and divide each result by the number of classes and adding them all up (and rounding). When it comes to magic I am a bit wary, considering that spells of whatever level are useful at all levels. Is the "roll hit points for each class separately and take the best result" an actual OD&D rule? I admit I have not read the books in any depth, so I might have missed it completely. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 5, 2010 6:09:41 GMT -6
Is the "roll hit points for each class separately and take the best result" an actual OD&D rule? I think it's more of a rul ing |
|
|
|
Post by giantbat on Aug 5, 2010 17:04:36 GMT -6
If he preferred the protection of non-magical armour, he would forgo his 1st level magic-user spell casting ability. Are there any rules in the 3LBB about class-based restrictions on the use of non-magical arms and armor? All I can find are the class descriptions on pp. 6-7 of Men & Magic, which are all specifically regarding magical arms and armor. |
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Aug 5, 2010 21:31:30 GMT -6
Are there any rules in the 3LBB about class-based restrictions on the use of non-magical arms and armor? All I can find are the class descriptions on pp. 6-7 of Men & Magic, which are all specifically regarding magical arms and armor. It's explicitly noted on those pages that MUs are limited to daggers as weapons. The other restrictions on both MUs and clerics is implicit, I believe, since it makes little sense that, if a magic-user cannot wear any magical armor, he can wear its magical equivalent. The same goes for clerics and non-magical edged weapons. |
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Aug 5, 2010 22:14:23 GMT -6
In a reply to a "review" of D&D by a guy who Gygax clearly had no time for, Gary disparaged the guy for taking a Cleric and giving him a sword (or something).
It wasn't clear in the rules, but it was apparently clear in Gary's mind that the prohibitions applied to non-magic weapons, too.
That, obviously, is a non-canon reply to your question. But subsequent rules (i.e.; AD&D) made it clear.
|
|
|
|
Post by giantbat on Aug 6, 2010 0:54:50 GMT -6
It's explicitly noted on those pages that MUs are limited to daggers as weapons. In my fifth printing, the rule is stated as: The whole plethora of enchanted items lies at the magic-users beck and call, save the arms and armor of the fighters (see, however, Elves); Magic-Users may arm themselves with daggers only. The use of a semicolon instead of a period makes the limitation to daggers an independent clause of the sentence pertaining to enchanted items. I would be interested to know if that punctuation is consistent through various printings. I wasn't asking what makes sense, just what it says in the rule books. |
|
|
|
Post by giantbat on Aug 6, 2010 1:07:58 GMT -6
It wasn't clear in the rules, but it was apparently clear in Gary's mind that the prohibitions applied to non-magic weapons, too. That, obviously, is a non-canon reply to your question. But subsequent rules (i.e.; AD&D) made it clear. Certainly! This just seemed an appropriate thread to inquire regarding the textual ambiguities of this edition, without reference to later sources. I was unaware of Gygax's reply to the "review"; thanks for that information. Do you know if the text of the reply (or the "review") is available online? |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 6, 2010 2:13:16 GMT -6
In my fifth printing, the rule is stated as: The whole plethora of enchanted items lies at the magic-users beck and call, save the arms and armor of the fighters (see, however, Elves); Magic-Users may arm themselves with daggers only. The use of a semicolon instead of a period makes the limitation to daggers an independent clause of the sentence pertaining to enchanted items. I would be interested to know if that punctuation is consistent through various printings. The 1st print does NOT have that semi-colon. It says;
The whole plethora of enchanted items lies at the magic-users beck and call, save the arms and armor of the fighters (see, however, Elves), but Magic-Users may arm themselves with daggers only.
On the whole, I'm convinced that the 1st print is a better quality product than the 6th print. After comparing them word by word my impression is that the 6th print was (rather poorly) re-organised to fit onto a different sized page, and to accommodate the additional advertising on the last page. As a result, the 6th print of M&M contains a lot more mistakes, and is missing quite a few page numbers and at least one picture, for example. |
|
