|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Aug 17, 2020 9:48:21 GMT -6
Something occurred to me. I've seen a great deal of debate over the years about why wizards can't wear armor and can't use swords. The arguments range from, "because that's the way it is in the rules," to, "It's just stupid--if Gandalf could use a sword my wizard should be able to as well!" to "armor inhibits movement and swordplay is so complex wizards don't have the time to study it effectively."
In truth, all of the above have some validity, but the actual answer as to the rationale can be found in Appendix N.
The D&D magic system is a mish-mash of all of the different influences Gygax and Arneson drew from while writing the original rules. We refer to the system as "Vancian" because of the "fire and forget" aspect, but actually it's not TRULY Vancian. In the Dying Earth novels, the most powerful wizards can only hold maybe 4 or 5 spells total and pretty much EVERY spell is 6th-9th-level brutal, turning people inside out, frying them with clouds of searing daggers, and the like.
So where does the anathema of magic and metal come from?
In the same fashion as Vancian magic is adapted (but not 100% faithfully) from Dying Earth, the anathema of metal to magic is conceptually (but not 100% faithfully) adapted from Fred Saberhagen's Empire of the East novels. In those novels, magic is a science predicated on using complex formulae to draw upon creatures created from the radiation from the previous meeting of A.R.D.N.E.H. and Orcus that resulted in The Change which rendered nuclear reactions impossible. For reasons that are never clearly delineated (or even understood by magic users themselves in the setting), magic tends to spectacularly malfunction in the presence of battle--specifically, when metal weapons are drawn for the purpose of violence.
It seems a given that Gygax adapted this idea to, "Wizards can't use swords or wear armor," from that source. It was, much like the fire-and-forget pseudo-Vancian magic, a conceptual nod to one of his inspirational works. I say Gygax because I'm not sure where Dave stood on this issue (and I THINK I may have heard somewhere that his wizards could use swords?)
In any case, there have been assertions over the years by many of the old guard that the reason wizards can't wear armor or use swords is that metal interferes with their magic. That clearly comes from the EotE source material.
Just something to chew on. Let the bell ring for Round 1 to begin!
|
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Aug 17, 2020 15:24:30 GMT -6
The D&D magic system is a mish-mash of all of the different influences Gygax and Arneson drew from while writing the original rules. We refer to the system as "Vancian" because of the "fire and forget" aspect, but actually it's not TRULY Vancian. In the Dying Earth novels, the most powerful wizards can only hold maybe 4 or 5 spells total and pretty much EVERY spell is 6th-9th-level brutal, turning people inside out, frying them with clouds of searing daggers, and the like. Characters in most stories could only hold between 3 and 5 spells, but all of the archmagi in the Rhialto the Marvelous stories were not so constrained. While they had their sandestins do most of their dirty work, it was always implied that this was out of a combination of laziness and not wanting to risk their own life and limb; when actually incited to take direct action, they never worried over which spells to take or how many they remaining. In fact, it was even mentioned that they would frequently make casual use of time-stopping spells just to prank or embarrass one another. I think this played into the level titles - most characters such as Mazirian would be referred to as a magician - specifically the title for a 6th level magic-user. While the spell slots for this level of character technically allow 8 spells, if one was to convert spell levels into a type of primitive spell points, a magician would have 14 spell points. With a maximum of 3rd level spells, that would be just about right for the number of spells that Mazirian could hold at once ( "four of the most formidable, or six of the lesser spells"), assuming he's taking all 2nd and 3rd level spells. Which I think is a fairly reasonable assumption given that the 1st level spells are primarily Gygaxian inventions that had no direct counterparts in The Dying Earth, with the possible exceptions of Sleep and Charm Person, which really are powerful enough to be 2nd level spells but seem to me as though Gary lowered them to 1st out of pity for the weakest of magic-users. |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Aug 17, 2020 15:39:00 GMT -6
The D&D magic system is a mish-mash of all of the different influences Gygax and Arneson drew from while writing the original rules. We refer to the system as "Vancian" because of the "fire and forget" aspect, but actually it's not TRULY Vancian. In the Dying Earth novels, the most powerful wizards can only hold maybe 4 or 5 spells total and pretty much EVERY spell is 6th-9th-level brutal, turning people inside out, frying them with clouds of searing daggers, and the like. Characters in most stories could only hold between 3 and 5 spells, but all of the archmagi in the Rhialto the Marvelous stories were not so constrained. While they had their sandestins do most of their dirty work, it was always implied that this was out of a combination of laziness and not wanting to risk their own life and limb; when actually incited to take direct action, they never worried over which spells to take or how many they remaining. In fact, it was even mentioned that they would frequently make casual use of time-stopping spells just to prank or embarrass one another. I think this played into the level titles - most characters such as Mazirian would be referred to as a magician - specifically the title for a 6th level magic-user. While the spell slots for this level of character technically allow 8 spells, if one was to convert spell levels into a type of primitive spell points, a magician would have 14 spell points. With a maximum of 3rd level spells, that would be just about right for the number of spells that Mazirian could hold at once ( "four of the most formidable, or six of the lesser spells"), assuming he's taking all 2nd and 3rd level spells. Which I think is a fairly reasonable assumption given that the 1st level spells are primarily Gygaxian inventions that had no direct counterparts in The Dying Earth, with the possible exceptions of Sleep and Charm Person, which really are powerful enough to be 2nd level spells but seem to me as though Gary lowered them to 1st out of pity for the weakest of magic-users. Sure, but the point is, D&D magic is NOT true Vancian just because it's fire and forget. Vancian magi to the last (even inexperienced ones) are FAR more powerful than any low level D&D mage. It was, rather INSPIRED and INFORMED by the idea of Vancian magic. That's the point I was making. I didn't want to write a treatise on it because I was just drawing an example to get to where metal and magic have a similar spiritual inference. I'd also argue that by the time he got to Rhialto, Vance had thrown his own rules out the window and was no longer even abiding by them. It's so wildly divergent from the rest of the stories that it barely (if at all) even fits into the oeuvre of The Dying Earth...which to be fair is a bit of a mess to begin with. |
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Aug 17, 2020 16:14:16 GMT -6
Characters in most stories could only hold between 3 and 5 spells, but all of the archmagi in the Rhialto the Marvelous stories were not so constrained. While they had their sandestins do most of their dirty work, it was always implied that this was out of a combination of laziness and not wanting to risk their own life and limb; when actually incited to take direct action, they never worried over which spells to take or how many they remaining. In fact, it was even mentioned that they would frequently make casual use of time-stopping spells just to prank or embarrass one another. I think this played into the level titles - most characters such as Mazirian would be referred to as a magician - specifically the title for a 6th level magic-user. While the spell slots for this level of character technically allow 8 spells, if one was to convert spell levels into a type of primitive spell points, a magician would have 14 spell points. With a maximum of 3rd level spells, that would be just about right for the number of spells that Mazirian could hold at once ( "four of the most formidable, or six of the lesser spells"), assuming he's taking all 2nd and 3rd level spells. Which I think is a fairly reasonable assumption given that the 1st level spells are primarily Gygaxian inventions that had no direct counterparts in The Dying Earth, with the possible exceptions of Sleep and Charm Person, which really are powerful enough to be 2nd level spells but seem to me as though Gary lowered them to 1st out of pity for the weakest of magic-users. Sure, but the point is, D&D magic is NOT true Vancian just because it's fire and forget. Vancian magi to the last (even inexperienced ones) are FAR more powerful than any low level D&D mage. It was, rather INSPIRED and INFORMED by the idea of Vancian magic. That's the point I was making. I didn't want to write a treatise on it because I was just drawing an example to get to where metal and magic have a similar spiritual inference. I'd also argue that by the time he got to Rhialto, Vance had thrown his own rules out the window and was no longer even abiding by them. It's so wildly divergent from the rest of the stories that it barely (if at all) even fits into the oeuvre of The Dying Earth...which to be fair is a bit of a mess to begin with. Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as a wall of text. The main thrust of my post was that Gygax seemed to intend Vance's characters to primarily fall within the 5th to 7th level range, at which point both the level title and the approximate level of on-demand magical might (what they can accomplish in a well-stocked laboratory is another story... whether Gygax deliberately gimped magical research in order to incentivize dungeon delving, or simply wasn't interested enough to write more detailed rules for it is a question for the ages). So the main difference from Vance's characters, in my opinion, is simply that Gygax extrapolated lower levels for starting characters and interpolated a bunch of steps in between Mazirian-level characters and Rhialto-level characters. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Aug 17, 2020 17:56:06 GMT -6
That's an interesting observation about Saberhagen's Empire of the East series. I'll have to read those one of these days.  |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Aug 17, 2020 18:48:05 GMT -6
Having magic-users so strongly and preferentially tied to daggers may come from the Athame or similar ritual knives. I first encountered the name "athame" in Lawrence-Watt Evan's Ethshar novels, which were influenced by playing OD&D in the '70s. I got the feeling that his use of the athame in those novels was to have a logical explanation (Watt-Evans is very logical) for why D&D wizards used daggers: ethshar.fandom.com/wiki/Athame |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Aug 18, 2020 9:19:06 GMT -6
Having magic-users so strongly and preferentially tied to daggers may come from the Athame or similar ritual knives. I first encountered the name "athame" in Lawrence-Watt Evan's Ethshar novels, which were influenced by playing OD&D in the '70s. I got the feeling that his use of the athame in those novels was to have a logical explanation (Watt-Evans is very logical) for why D&D wizards used daggers: ethshar.fandom.com/wiki/AthameAgreed. Even in fantasy there's a long association with wizards and ceremonial daggers. The athame is also strongly associated with real world new age magical practices. I don't know how versed Gygax and Arneson were with actual new age practices, but certainly the idea of the evil sorcerer using a ceremonial dagger to commit animal (and human) sacrifices is a time-honored literary tradition in sci-fi/fantasy. We certainly see it in the Conan stories, which were an influence on Gygax as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 19, 2020 5:18:45 GMT -6
That's an interesting observation about Saberhagen's Empire of the East series. I'll have to read those one of these days. I bought a copy recently because I found out that Jason had been working on a DCC RPG version of Empire of the East. I haven't read it since the 80's and thought it would be fun to revisit the world. |
|
|
|
Post by delta on Aug 19, 2020 15:39:54 GMT -6
I like the point about daggers as ritual implements. One thing that rubs me slightly the wrong way in my OD&D games is that all the human magic-users wind up wearing a brace of daggers and generally throwing them most rounds. Which feels more like a thiefly thing to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Aug 19, 2020 16:10:11 GMT -6
I like the point about daggers as ritual implements. One thing that rubs me slightly the wrong way in my OD&D games is that all the human magic-users wind up wearing a brace of daggers and generally throwing them most rounds. Which feels more like a thiefly thing to do. I've only ever had thieves throwing daggers; but then again, I let mages use a staff or a light crossbow (or a spear or club, but no one has ever used these options) so mostly they prefer the crossbow and have the dagger for melee emergencies. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Aug 20, 2020 8:59:19 GMT -6
... the anathema of metal to magic is conceptually (but not 100% faithfully) adapted from Fred Saberhagen's Empire of the East novels. In those novels, magic is a science predicated on using complex formulae to draw upon creatures created from the radiation from the previous meeting of A.R.D.N.E.H. and Orcus that resulted in The Change which rendered nuclear reactions impossible. For reasons that are never clearly delineated (or even understood by magic users themselves in the setting), magic tends to spectacularly malfunction in the presence of battle--specifically, when metal weapons are drawn for the purpose of violence. That's really interesting Jason, and I will say "maybe". Actually its a subject I've long wondered about but never had the time to research in depth. You probably remember that the BTPBD draft is pretty clear on the interference of iron on magic - like in this bit in the Spells description: NOTE: Magic-Users are warned about the dangers of trying to cast a spell while
wearing metal armor and/or helms. Because of effects of “cold iron” on magic, a Magic-User
dressed in plate mail will be unable to have a spell of any kind or level be successful, although it
will cost him a spell for that 24 period. A Magic-User dressed in chain mail will have only a 25%
chance for complete success,... I don't know if this is in the Guidon draft, but I suspect it may be something Mark Bufkin added to BTPBD for clarification of the rule. In any case, I doubt the idea that iron and magic don't mix was invented by Saberhagen. There is a long tradition in fairy lore about iron being deadly to them because they are magical creatures and there has been a "theory" floating around for a long time that the iron age is what killed or dampened magic. The idea is that before the iron age sorcery was prevalent, but the smelting and casting of all that iron interferes with it now. You see this for example in Tim Powers excellent novel On Stranger Tides (1987). I think that is the idea that Gygax and Saberhagen were drawing on but exactly where either of them came across it, I don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Aug 20, 2020 14:10:48 GMT -6
I had actually forgotten about the BTPBD draft and iron interference. That establishes an Arnesonian influence (if more than a bit questionable from a direct standpoint).
Oh, there's no doubt that cold iron and the fey are anathema to one another in myth, but I don't think there's any doubt that the problem with magic users not being able to cast in armor or use swords comes from the Saberhagen connection. Recall that in myth, it's SPECIFICALLY iron (usually cold iron), not metal in general. Gygax and Arneson were never coy about their influences in fantasy fiction--most of what they put in the rules didn't come from mythology directly, but from the fantasy fiction that was popular and prevalent in the 1960s. Again, it's certainly not a direct adaptation of EotE, since in that series it's as much the violence of battle as it is the weapons and armor, but I suspect it's a spiritual adaptation in the same manner as Vancian magic. In any case, it's the most directly traceable literary source from Gygax's own Appendix N.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2020 15:08:28 GMT -6
I like the point about daggers as ritual implements. One thing that rubs me slightly the wrong way in my OD&D games is that all the human magic-users wind up wearing a brace of daggers and generally throwing them most rounds. Which feels more like a thiefly thing to do. The thing that bugs me the most is that staves in 3lbb are only magically charged implements for them which they apparently have no martial proficiency with. It's only logical that in a world with wizards who carry staves, they'd be trained in their use in melee combat "just in case". You certainly see this often enough in fiction. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Aug 20, 2020 15:31:53 GMT -6
I like the point about daggers as ritual implements. One thing that rubs me slightly the wrong way in my OD&D games is that all the human magic-users wind up wearing a brace of daggers and generally throwing them most rounds. Which feels more like a thiefly thing to do. As a fix, one could allow a magic-user to make a bonded dagger (athame) that lets them cast a "wizard fire" or "zap" cantrip once per round. The zap requires a to-hit roll and does 1d6 damage. That would feel more wizardly yet preserve the association with daggers and still give them the same attack capability as throwing multiple daggers. Alternately a "wizard staff" or amulet etc could serve the same purpose. The athame can only be used by the wizard to which it is bonded. If an athame is lost or destroyed, a new one can be made in a day or a week or whatever feels appropriate. I like these kind of fixes that don't change the underlying rules, just layer something over them. The athame is essentially a new minor magic item. Sort of like how healing potions can mitigate the problem of 1st level clerics without healing spells. |
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Aug 20, 2020 16:35:23 GMT -6
I had actually forgotten about the BTPBD draft and iron interference. That establishes an Arnesonian influence (if more than a bit questionable from a direct standpoint). Oh, there's no doubt that cold iron and the fey are anathema to one another in myth, but I don't think there's any doubt that the problem with magic users not being able to cast in armor or use swords comes from the Saberhagen connection. Recall that in myth, it's SPECIFICALLY iron (usually cold iron), not metal in general. Gygax and Arneson were never coy about their influences in fantasy fiction--most of what they put in the rules didn't come from mythology directly, but from the fantasy fiction that was popular and prevalent in the 1960s. Again, it's certainly not a direct adaptation of EotE, since in that series it's as much the violence of battle as it is the weapons and armor, but I suspect it's a spiritual adaptation in the same manner as Vancian magic. In any case, it's the most directly traceable literary source from Gygax's own Appendix N. I've read blog posts by a couple of medievalists (unfortunately I can't remember who or how long ago to provide links) who believe that the "cold iron" thing is a result of latter-day readers reading too much into the exact wording. Their opinion is that "cold iron" was synonymous with "cold steel" - as in the phrase "Trenches were rushed, and the best men won with cold steel." Since for the Roman period, steel production was impractical for the quantities that the legions would need, given the technology of the times. Then in the Early Middle Ages, most of Europe was simply recovering from the loss of Roman trade routes and copying the late-Roman lorica hamata mail and spatha sword, with regional variations and a slow evolution toward larger swords and looking for ways to reinforce or supplement mail over the centuries. There was a small amount of steel-making, such as Damascus/Wootz steel and the Ulfberht swords, but scientifically was not considered a different substance - the Wootz steel was actually called "Seric iron" in contemporary sources! The High Middle Ages saw more local steel-making in various parts of Europe, but linguistically and in the minds of the 99.9% of the population who were not part of the smithing trade, iron and steel were still poorly differentiated from one another. Etymologically, the word "steel" as an English adjective to describe an object made of steel (as opposed to iron or some other material) didn't appear in writing until around 1200. It was only really in the Late Middle Ages and beyond that iron and steel began to be widely regarded as distinct. It was a little different in China and Japan, of course; the ancient Chinese used a lot of cast iron for decorative purposes, and the difference between cast iron and steel is much more obvious and readily apparent than the difference between wrought iron and steel. Meanwhile, the quality of iron deposits in Japan was so poor that the difference between iron and steel was much more pronounced. As for the "cold" part just being poetic, in the same way as in the phrase "cold steel," the consideration was of the many, many folk traditions involving iron nails, iron horseshoes, or the like. None of these everyday objects were "cold-forged" or made of meteorite iron or any of the other outlandish interpretations that I've heard of. They were just regular wrought iron. Also, they made a compelling case that iron wasn't being deliberately chosen over steel for any mystical or superstitious reason - wrought iron was simply the material used for these types of utilitarian objects because steel was much more labor-intensive and expensive to produce, and nails and horseshoes didn't really benefit much from being steel rather than iron. |
|
|
|
Post by delta on Aug 20, 2020 21:58:28 GMT -6
I like the point about daggers as ritual implements. One thing that rubs me slightly the wrong way in my OD&D games is that all the human magic-users wind up wearing a brace of daggers and generally throwing them most rounds. Which feels more like a thiefly thing to do. The thing that bugs me the most is that staves in 3lbb are only magically charged implements for them which they apparently have no martial proficiency with. It's only logical that in a world with wizards who carry staves, they'd be trained in their use in melee combat "just in case". You certainly see this often enough in fiction. Yeah, that's easy to agree with. On the other hand, there simply aren't any staves as regular weapons on any of the Chainmail, Vol-1, or even Sup-I weapon/equipment lists. Sometimes I consider house-ruling in staff proficiency to wizards, but (1) the extra line to do that, (2) the resulting questions "Where is it in the list? What's the cost? What's the damage?", and (3) the fact that it breaks the nice symmetry with the other weapons ( link), perennially makes me skip that. Also when it finally shows up in 1E PHB I think the damage of 1d6 is too high. |
|
|
|
Post by delta on Aug 20, 2020 22:05:08 GMT -6
As a fix, one could allow a magic-user to make a bonded dagger (athame) that lets them cast a "wizard fire" or "zap" cantrip once per round. The zap requires a to-hit roll and does 1d6 damage. That would feel more wizardly yet preserve the association with daggers and still give them the same attack capability as throwing multiple daggers. Alternately a "wizard staff" or amulet etc could serve the same purpose. The athame can only be used by the wizard to which it is bonded. If an athame is lost or destroyed, a new one can be made in a day or a week or whatever feels appropriate. I like these kind of fixes that don't change the underlying rules, just layer something over them. The athame is essentially a new minor magic item. Sort of like how healing potions can mitigate the problem of 1st level clerics without healing spells. Interesting, but I'm really not one who's going to put every-round damaging cantrips in my OD&D game (even though of course it's standard in 5E). For me it takes too much away from OD&D's magic being rare, arguably not believed by most of the populace. In the past I've spent time trying to erase all the visibly obvious magic effects at 1st-2nd levels from AD&D, for example (esp. clerics). The one thing I have mused on in the past is some kind of "advising" bonus, like the wizard can find weak spots or vulnerabilities in enemies and give bonuses to hit to their fighter friends each round. Possibly some knowledge check so there's a die-roll involved. That's the best I've come up with for "What would I expect a hedge wizard in a pulp story to really be doing in a fight each round?". |
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Aug 20, 2020 23:34:29 GMT -6
The thing that bugs me the most is that staves in 3lbb are only magically charged implements for them which they apparently have no martial proficiency with. It's only logical that in a world with wizards who carry staves, they'd be trained in their use in melee combat "just in case". You certainly see this often enough in fiction. Yeah, that's easy to agree with. On the other hand, there simply aren't any staves as regular weapons on any of the Chainmail, Vol-1, or even Sup-I weapon/equipment lists. Sometimes I consider house-ruling in staff proficiency to wizards, but (1) the extra line to do that, (2) the resulting questions "Where is it in the list? What's the cost? What's the damage?", and (3) the fact that it breaks the nice symmetry with the other weapons ( link), perennially makes me skip that. Also when it finally shows up in 1E PHB I think the damage of 1d6 is too high. You already have more than one weapon in certain categories, without necessarily being identical - hammer and mace are grouped together, but only the hammer is able to be thrown, and pike and lance are together and while you don't address it in that post, I would assume they are distinct since a pike would be too long and heavy to hold up with a single hand while mounted, whereas a lance is shorter and would be comparable in length to a "standard" polearm or two-handed spear and wouldn't merit the pike's extra-long reach. So it would be perfectly fair to add staves to the blunt weapons row. Or possibly add a row of "Self Defense Weapons" as distinguished from weapons of war - it could include short staves and clubs (hanbō, shillelagh, cudgel/singlestick, etc.) as the "Medium" variety dealing 1d6 damage, and anything larger such as a quarterstaff or full bō being strictly two-handed, still dealing only 1d6 damage, but having reach the same as spears and polearms. Then for the "Small" category, have knives (as distinct from daggers) which are throwable and deal 1d4 damage, and modify the dagger contained in the "Sword" group to be long daggers like a rondel, dirk, or bollock dagger that would be unsuitable for throwing, but deal 1d6 damage. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Aug 21, 2020 16:32:58 GMT -6
I like the point about daggers as ritual implements. One thing that rubs me slightly the wrong way in my OD&D games is that all the human magic-users wind up wearing a brace of daggers and generally throwing them most rounds. Which feels more like a thiefly thing to do. The thing that bugs me the most is that staves in 3lbb are only magically charged implements for them which they apparently have no martial proficiency with. It's only logical that in a world with wizards who carry staves, they'd be trained in their use in melee combat "just in case". You certainly see this often enough in fiction. Well here's the thing, the text doesn't say Mu's can't use staves in combat. All it actually says it this: "Magic-Users may arm themselves with daggers only." That's it. No other commentary. So what exactly is it to "arm" oneself and is a staff considered "arms"? Logically, staves must be exempted, because wizard are specifically given magical staves to wield in combat as magical weapons. Staves, though certainly weapons, are arguably not "Arms" in the sense meant by the text. Maybe you see that as stretching things, but I don't have any problem with Mu's who want to bash in a goblins head with the big stick they carry around. |
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Aug 21, 2020 22:39:34 GMT -6
I wonder if staves are not mentioned only because they're not under the weapons categories in the magic item lists, but separate?
|
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Aug 21, 2020 22:41:01 GMT -6
As for the "cold" part just being poetic, in the same way as in the phrase "cold steel," the consideration was of the many, many folk traditions involving iron nails, iron horseshoes, or the like. None of these everyday objects were "cold-forged" or made of meteorite iron or any of the other outlandish interpretations that I've heard of. They were just regular wrought iron. Yeah, this is what I've heard too; "cold iron" is just iron, and all iron was seen as protective against faeries, witches/hexes, or whatever. Unfortunately I don't have any sources either... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2020 7:39:35 GMT -6
Isn't "cold iron" sometimes translated as "wrought iron" in some translations of fairy tales? That makes me think of something taken from the earth and changed by the arts of man. So, philosophically this is not of the fairie realm but very much a thing of the sons of Adam. It's profane to them because it's "worked" or altered from its natural form. It offends them like the cross offend the Vampire, doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Aug 23, 2020 15:37:31 GMT -6
That makes me think of something taken from the earth and changed by the arts of man. So, philosophically this is not of the fairie realm but very much a thing of the sons of Adam. It's profane to them because it's "worked" or altered from its natural form. Yeah, the fact that iron is not found in metallic form naturally on Earth - it's always a human product* - is likely the point.
The craft of the smith was also considered quasi-magical in some places and times. IIRC the early version of St. Patrick's Lorica (a prayer for protection) asks for protection from 'the spells of smiths'. In early times it was rare, special, powerful knowledge.
*OK, meteorites, yeah... and I think there are one or two other exceptions, but they wouldn't have been known to medieval Europeans.
|
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Aug 24, 2020 6:10:34 GMT -6
“It's just stupid--if Gandalf could use a sword my wizard should be able to as well!"
“Gandalf wasn’t a man”
I know the above sounds dumb.
anyhoo. So maybe it was just a mechanical constraint to separate the class options. From what I understand, Blackmoor isnt the source. Gygax probably playtested the heck out of it and felt the need to limit Magic Users lest they take over the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Otto Harkaman on Aug 24, 2020 20:21:15 GMT -6
Maybe the miniatures they were using didn't have a magic-user with a weapon?
|
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Aug 28, 2020 1:38:51 GMT -6
My explanation for this was always purely a game "balancing" aspect, so that MU's couldn't use magic swords.
Swords were used as ritual implements, too, so why not allow them as well as daggers? In my games, I allow MU's to use swords and staffs as weapons, too. Every hit does 1d6 damage, so who cares what weapon it is as long as it's not magical?
In games with variable damage I also allow MU's to use swords, but do only d4 damage. Balance issue (if ever there was one) solved and the player can have their Gandalf-style wizard with a sword.
This, by the way, leads up to another thing I regularly do: damage by classes, not by weapon. A fighting man will do more damage with a sword than a magic-user because he actually learned how to use it, he was trained in using weapons after all, unlike the MU. That's d8 damage for FM (d10 if two-handed), d6(d8 if 2H) for clerics and d4 for MU's (and thieves if used). Greyhawk and later Hit Dice align to this. "Hit" Dice, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Aug 28, 2020 6:33:30 GMT -6
Why not rules as written? A fantasy game doesn’t Need to simulate reality, or Tolkien for that matter. Nor does there need to be an explanation for everything that doesn’t.
|
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Aug 30, 2020 2:30:35 GMT -6
How can one learn to be a great olympic runner if always insisting on hobbling around on crutches? To truly develop his arcane mastery the MU must abandon conventional, worldly artefacts of martial purpose. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2020 5:41:49 GMT -6
Counter point - besides being one of the most iconic philosophers of all time, Plato was also an actual Olympian. A champion wrestler. In fact, the name we know him by probably means "The Wide" and was his wrestling nickname. With sufficient time and willpower one can be both very intelligent and very beefy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Aug 30, 2020 15:02:46 GMT -6
Also, Olympians still use cars, trains, and planes to get places.
Crutches are a poor example since even normal people who have never competed higher than a local Little League level of sports don't hobble around on crutches unless they're seriously injured. Speaking of which, sports-related injuries are not uncommon, and when Olympians have serious leg, ankle, or calf injuries I'm sure they use crutches just like anyone else would.
|
|
