Elves and XP

[Finarvyn]

I'm looking for a BTB reference and I'll be darned if I can find it.

I know that BTB elves can be figting men or magic-users. I'm trying to find a rule on how they allocate experience points. In my mind I thought there was a rule that elves had to put half their XP into fighter and half into MU, even when they no longer advanced in fighter, but this may be because of a statement in Greyhawk and not a reference in the white box.

Greyhawk says:

Elven thieves work in all three categories at once (fighter, magic-user, and thief) unless they opt to never be anything other than in the thief category. Thus, experience is always distributed proportionately in the three categories even when the elf can no longer gain additional levels in a given category.

Anyone know of a better source or reference?

[Porphyre]

The one reference I think about actually advocates against an even distribution between classes. It's in Monsters & Traesure

For every 50 Elves encountered  there will be one of above-normal capabilities. Roll a four-sided die for level of  fighting and a six-sided die for level of magical ability, treating any 1's rolled as 2's and 6's (magical level),as 5's. For every 100 encountered there will be a Hero/Warlock.

According to this, an elf leader could be a 4-level Fighter and 2nd-level MU, or a 1st level Fighter and 5 level MU or every other combination. this wouldn't be if experience was evenly distributed as in Suppl 1 or AD&D. 

[talysman]

I always assumed that, pre-Greyhawk, the absence of any strict rule meant that you used common sense and earned XP for whichever class you choose at the beginning of the adventure. Thus, the only written reference would be the main entry in Men & Magic:

"Elves can begin as either Fighting-Men or Magic-Users and freely switch class whenever they choose, from adventure to adventure, but not during the course of a single game.

This actually backs up @porphyre's quote from Monsters & Treasure. If elves can switch classes at any time, they should be able to control which class levels faster, which means not all elves should be equally advanced in either class.

[Finarvyn]

Talysman, that jibes with the way I remember it. I was mostly trying to remember if they kept putting XP into fighter even after maxing out fighter. Sounds like the player gets the choice. I just thought there was a more clear reference, but I'm glad to see that there wasn't something absurdly obvious that I had overlooked somehow.

[delta]

This is definitely one of the deep mysteries/gaps. :-)

[hamurai]

Mar 23, 2020 17:23:02 GMT -6 talysman said:

I always assumed that, pre-Greyhawk, the absence of any strict rule meant that you used common sense and earned XP for whichever class you choose at the beginning of the adventure.

That's how we ended up playing, too. We started out with equal distribution, coming from a later edition which allowed multi-classing, but we didn't stick with it.
Makes more sense when just looking at the rules in the 3 LBBs. At least to me

[Finarvyn]

To be clear, my final goal was to create an elf class where the character could fight and use spells instead of having to switch back and forth each game. I know it almost dips into "B/X territory" but it's the way we played elves long ago before B/X and I want to have such a class handy when I run my next OD&D campaign.

Well, what is interesting to me is that I'm trying to reconstruct some thinking that I haven't done in 30 years or so. I know that back in the day I had an elf option which was standardized by our group so that instead of the elf player picking a level each time the levels would come in a pre-determined sequence. I scribbled several of these onto a yellow pad and had my sister look at them to see what seemed most familiar.

The one I ended up with has a sequence of (FM), M, F, M, M, F, M, M, F, M, M, which is to say that "level 1" I gave both fighter and magic-user levels and then roughly every 3rd level another fighter level until the top. While the total levels add to 12, I count it as an 11-level sequence because the elf starts with two. This really comes down to an XP issue, that by using the chart BTB first level added in is 0 XP.

Anyway, I built my elf class using 3LBB only and I think I'm going to try it when I run my next OD&D game. I capped my charts off at "name level" and I think I will force "retirement" (moving onto the Barony game) at that point. I decided also to keep racial level caps as per the 3LBB. At some point, when I get my DM Screen finished, I will probably post my charts for all to see and critique.

A few thoughts about what I wound up with:

(1) Elf gets an advantage at 1st level, as it's technically 2nd. (F-1, MU-1)

(2) I was initially bothered by the fact that an 11th level elf (211,500 XP) was easier to reach than an 11th level magic user (300,000 XP). This is what prompted this thread initially, to be honest, as I was trying to decide if the class balanced right or needed to be screwed at higher levels by absorbing "dead XP" for levels he doesn't get. I decided not to do that.

(3) I was also troubled a little by the fact that an 11th level elf (9 HD) was only slightly better than the 11th level MU (8+1 HD).

(4) Then I realized that a F-4/MU-8 was probably not as good as MU-11.

(5) I found that at the top elf doesn't do so well in saving throws or combat. Makes sense, as it doesn't earn as many levels in either class.

Overall I like what I put together. I'm still looking for my old notes on my elf class from the 1970's but the feel of this one is solid the more that I look at it, and I figure it's close even if not exactly what I had before.

[Red Baron]

I have played elfs in ad&d, and I prefer the 3LBB elf. Switching back and forth forces an interesting player choice at the start of each adventure. It makes the class very flexible but also offers a tough player choice.

Here is my interpretation:

Elfs may switch from fighting-men to magic-users between adventures (1 week down-time required). They track separate hit point and experience totals for each of these classes. Elfs may employ enchanted items according to the limitations of their current class.

[thecoldironkid]

i always assumed the elf always just had his one XP total, and whenever he chooses which class to be that day, he is of the level that his XP total dictates. so sometimes he is a slightly higher-level fighter than he is a magic-user, since fighter has a lower XP requirement. but i never caught that bit in Monsters and Treasure about variable levels in each class, so separate XP tracks is probably the more correct interpretation...

[delta]

I'll just briefly serve up my ruling on it: For me, the "freely switch" language only gets implemented as to which class gets the XP from a given adventure. Initially I was trying to get the decision in at the start of an adventure, but we tended to forget that or lose the record, etc. So then I flipped to the choice at the end of the adventure, at the time when XP is awarded, which is much more natural and impossible to forget about. The XP award does have to be allocated in a single lump sum to one class or the other.

I really like the player-choice and variation possible from selecting which silo to put the XP in. Some elves specialize in one or the other; within a party you may have one dedicated to front-line fighter, defending an ally who's specializing in magic-use; and then maybe they flip when they hit the level cap or something. For a while I was letting them slice up the XP arbitrarily, but it's a much more interesting and tense choice (and simpler?) to have to drop it all together in one class or the other. There's a lot of "I could almost get to 3rd level, but I'd miss it by 100 points, so should I just pile it into my main class instead?" talking points.

[hamurai]

Yeah, unless you have clearly defined start and finish lines for an "adventure", it's hard to make a good decision. When our group was rather small, I allowed switching by getting different gear ready (so the group had a better chance to be prepared for different situations). So, when the elf had spells prepared and got out of his armor, he was a MU. That was a low-level game and the elf didn't have magical armour, so it was a clear switch by gear. With magical arms and armour I'm not sure if a gear-related class switch would work.

[talysman]

For me, the start or end of an adventure means "time in town as opposed to in a dungeon or the wilderness." Elves switch class when they are back at home base. They can't switch class while exploring.

[sixdemonbag]

Here’s how I do OD&D Elves:

1. Spell progression as Cleric
2. XP progression as M-U
3. Save and attack as F-M
4. Limited to 8th level

[Finarvyn]

The irony is that I put all this work into coming up with "my" elves for my new OD&D campaign then when the four players rolled their stats "in order" they decided to follow what they rolled so we ended up with a Magic-user, cleric, and two dwarves. All that work and no elves.

I'll share my version soon.

[hamurai]

That's fate for you

[chicagowiz]

Those PCs might die quickly, so don't put away your rules yet...

I'm in the middle of re-reading 3H3L, and I'm all about elves right now. The way I'm handling it in my OD&D campaigns is that the elf makes a conscious choice when they set out for the day from their home on how they'll use their powers - as a magic user or fighter, and that's what they are. It follows along with 3H3L in that one day, Duke Alfric was busy casting spells and summoning demons, but another day, he was out riding his horse and fighting.

[Finarvyn]

Elves are such an odd combination of classes. I know that in the 70's we tried having elves bounce back and forth but were dissatisfied with the feel of playing elves in that manner, which is what led us to combine them into one "class." It does make elves more generic, but no more so than fighters or clerics or dwarves or any other class.

[chicagowiz]

It probably helps to have the player read that source material as well, to divorce them of the Tolkein (or B/X) visual.

[Starbeard]

I guess I never really understood the full utility of making a distinct separation between your elf's status as an FM and MU.

Does it mean that when you decide to venture out as a Fighting-Man, that all of your abilities, HD and class features as a Magic-User are ignored? Separate hit points, separate saving throws, separate combat matrices, separate abilities? If that's the case, then these are simply two separate characters who cannot adventure together, who hog resources they can only use 50% of at a time, and who both die if either one dies: why not just make two elves, one a fighter and one a magician? Even if your DM doesn't allow you to take two PCs out at a time, you can at least be assured that you'll still have one if the other dies.

[thegreyelf]

While Starbeard makes a solid observation, this is the way I've always viewed it. Your character has a single XP total, which you apply to whatever class they choose to use on any given adventure. That means they will, at some point, operate at different levels as a Magic User and Fighter. it strikes me that the easiest way to handle it is to simply have two different character sheets for your elf: one as a fighter, and one as a magic user. You just use whichever one suits the choice you make that adventure.

It's MORE than likely that this is the reason why elves were presented as they were in Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X D&D. They simply work better as a mishmash than with a clunky back-and-forth, "I've forgotten how to use a sword today" choice.

[talysman]

Apr 8, 2020 9:20:00 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

While Starbeard makes a solid observation, this is the way I've always viewed it. Your character has a single XP total, which you apply to whatever class they choose to use on any given adventure. That means they will, at some point, operate at different levels as a Magic User and Fighter. it strikes me that the easiest way to handle it is to simply have two different character sheets for your elf: one as a fighter, and one as a magic user. You just use whichever one suits the choice you make that adventure.

It's MORE than likely that this is the reason why elves were presented as they were in Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X D&D. They simply work better as a mishmash than with a clunky back-and-forth, "I've forgotten how to use a sword today" choice.

The only way two character sheets and a single XP total would work, as I see it, is if elves aren't allowed to use swords when they are magic-users ("forgotten how to use a sword today") and aren't allowed to cast spells while they are fighters.

But it seems clear to me, from the M&M quote about using magic armor while casting spells and the M&T quote about rolling for the level of both classes for elven leaders, that elves can use a sword, wear armor, and cast spells all at the same time, whether it's pre-Greyhawk OD&D, post-Greyhawk OD&D, B/X, or AD&D. All that changes is the way XP is split:

• pre-Greyhawk OD&D: Only earn XP in one class at a time, player's choice
• post-Greyhawk OD&D or AD&D: Divide evenly between all classes, even when one class hits the level cap
• B/X: No XP split, use a special class instead

[thegreyelf]

I would argue that the M&T quote is 100% moot, as OD&D is VERY clear that monsters don't follow the same rules as PCs. Regarding the ability to use shields and magic armor, that represents an exception to normal Magic User rules, not the ability to maintain ALL fighter abilities. In fact, it's very clear that it only allows MAGIC armor.

I would argue that elves are not, in fact, allowed to use swords as magic users, and in fact can't even wear mundane armor. They are also not allowed to cast spells when they are fighters. That seems to me the very clear intent of the rules as written, and that's exactly WHY it was changed later.

[Starbeard]

I am still fascinated with the arcane idea of alternating between classes, even if I've always experienced problems with it. Just from these last few posts, I'm thinking the single XP method might be the way forward for me. Elves would keep track of a single XP total, and are allowed three choices:

1) venture out as a fighting-man, at whatever level your XP allows.
2) venture out as a magic-user, at whatever level your XP allows.
3) venture out as both, with your XP divided equally between them.

Switching takes a week removed from play while the character engages in meditation and mystical elf-praxis, and requires you to re-roll HD. Note that an elf's ability scores may bestow an XP bonus in one case, but not another. I've pretty much dropped XP bonuses from my games, but this is the first time I've felt they actually produce an interesting game effect.

Elf NPCs have variable and random levels in FM and MU, because of course NPCs follow different rules.

If thieves are being used, then this includes option 4) venture out as a thief, and 5) venture out as all three classes, with XP divided equally.

[thegreyelf]

To be clear? I personally prefer either the "split XP" method of post-Greyhawk/AD&D or the B/X single-class method. Indeed, I have always enjoyed the way Labyrinth Lord allows for playing all the different varieties of Elf at the same table. Take whichever one you like best and roll with it!

I'm only debating what the rules seem to clearly indicate in Men & Magic.

[talysman]

Apr 8, 2020 10:12:56 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

I would argue that the M&T quote is 100% moot, as OD&D is VERY clear that monsters don't follow the same rules as PCs. Regarding the ability to use shields and magic armor, that represents an exception to normal Magic User rules, not the ability to maintain ALL fighter abilities. In fact, it's very clear that it only allows MAGIC armor.

I would argue that elves are not, in fact, allowed to use swords as magic users, and in fact can't even wear mundane armor. They are also not allowed to cast spells when they are fighters. That seems to me the very clear intent of the rules as written, and that's exactly WHY it was changed later.

I don't think it's at all clear that monsters don't follow the same rules as PCs, only that you don't have to roll for ability scores or keep track of XP for GM-controlled monsters.

And I think the reading of "They may use magic armor and still act as Magic-Users" as meaning elves are restricted to magic armor as magic-users is not the proper meaning, even though I've used that reading myself for a while. There is no "only" in front of "magic armor". The text is definitely saying that magic armor, which normally does not provide magical benefit for magic-users, is usable by elves. It is not definite whether any other restrictions are implied.

What of weaponry? M&M says "Thus, they gain the benefits of both classes and may use both weaponry and spells." Again, it doesn't say "but not both simultaneously." That's an additional interpretation, common enough, but not universal. I believe Gronan mentioned that this ruling may have been in play at Gary's table at some point, but it was never written into the rules, and clearly changed by the time of Greyhawk, which Gronan has also stated was in use at Gary's table before the LBBs were published. So, there's definitely a precedent for making elven fighting and spell-casting mutually exclusive, but it's not the "clear intent" of the rules to do that. In fact, it's always been my understanding that anything not expressly forbidden by the rules is potentially something that can be allowed, in contrast to modern rules forbidding anything not expressly allowed.

So run elves that way, if you wish, but no, that's not what the rules say.

[thegreyelf]

Actually, you're the one who is reading far beyond what the rules say. The rules ALSO don't say, "They can use magic armor, which means they can use all armor." No, they SPECIFY that Elves can use magic armor and don't say they can use anything else. You're the one who is choosing to read blanket permissions that aren't there. Of course they say they gain the benefits of both classes--they can choose which benefits to use from adventure to adventure. You're reading into the rules. I'm reading the rules as written. It's disingenuous of you to simply declare my reading wrong. You're giving elven players SUCH an advantage that there's no reason to ever play anything BUT an elf in your games.

So far as monsters not following the rules of PCs, The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures are clear on this in several occasions. One that comes to mind immediately is "all monsters can see perfectly in the dark, even though PCs can't." Elves in Monsters & Treasure have the ability of moving silently, which is not given to the PC version. They may also split-move and fire, which is not an ability granted to PC elves.

Sorry, my friend. I'm afraid you're the one who's reading things into the rules that aren't there. I'm reading exactly what's written.

The rules are clear: An elf "begins as either magic user or fighting-men and may freely switch between the two, from adventure to adventure, but not during the course of a single game."

Exceptions are then given, one of which is the use of magic armor.

Aside from those exceptions, they MUST be one or the other. Period. Never both at once. Since Magic Users cannot use swords or regular armor, neither can an elf operating as one. Make up any justification for it that you like--maybe the metal interferes with spellcasting unless it, too, is enchanted. It's as good an explanation as any. Regardless, it's CRYSTAL clear and anything else is imposing one's own interpretation on what is not written.

[peterlind]

From a literal reading:

1. "Elves can begin as either Fighting-Men or Magic-Users": I interpret this to mean that Elves begin as Fighting-Man level 1, and Magic-User, level 1, with 0 xp in both classes. For the first adventure, the elf character will function as a level 1 fighter or a level 1 magic-user, as determined by the player. Any xp earned will be earned just to the one class that the elf functioned as.

2. ". . . and freely switch class whenever they choose, from adventure to adventure, but not during the course of a single game." I take this to mean that at the beginning of a new adventure, the elf will function as a fighter or a magic-user, again as determined by the player. Again, any xp earned are only for that one class.

3. "Thus, they gain the benefits of both classes and may use both weaponry and spells." If functioning as a fighter, the elf can use any weapon or armor. If functioning as a magic-user, the elf can use a dagger but cannot use non-magical armor. However, "They may use magic armor and still act as Magic-Users."

[Zenopus]

Mod reminder to everyone to keep things civil. We are monitoring this thread.

The phrase "act as Magic-Users" may just mean "use magic"; that is, cast spells. Thus, "They may use magic armor and still act as Magic-Users" may mean that "They may wear magic armor and still cast spells". It wouldn't need to mention weapons because a MU can't use a weapon and cast a spell at the same time.

[thegreyelf]

Apr 8, 2020 22:47:38 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

Mod reminder to everyone to keep things civil. We are monitoring this thread.

The phrase "act as Magic-Users" may just mean "use magic"; that is, cast spells. Thus, "They may use magic armor and still act as Magic-Users" may mean that "They may wear magic armor and still cast spells". It wouldn't need to mention weapons because a MU can't use a weapon and cast a spell at the same time.

Apologies if my post came off as snippy or attacking. Wasn't my intent, but I can totally see how it could be read that way. Mea culpa.

That being said, it's unlikely Gygax was using a specific character class name to refer to a generic, "they can cast spells."

[peterlind]

Something that has occurred to me . . . I did not start playing D&D until after Greyhawk was out. How were hit points determined for elves based just on the white box, before the first supplement was released . . . ?