|
Post by DungeonDevil on Aug 30, 2020 17:38:32 GMT -6
Metaphorical crutches, people. Sheesh. *eyeroll*
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Aug 30, 2020 17:50:33 GMT -6
Metaphorical crutches, people. Sheesh. *eyeroll* The Olympic runners on crutches were already a metaphor for magic-users using swords - putting a second metaphor inside the first one is just bad form, and not something any reasonable person would assume when reading what you wrote. If you wanted the crutches to also be a metaphor for something else, you should have used a different word rather than having a transitive metaphor of swords -> crutches -> whatever you actually meant.
|
|
|
Post by doublejig2 on Aug 30, 2020 17:53:52 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. Yes, Howard's wizards and sorcerers don't use swords - far beneath their hellish attainments, one might conjecture. Thoth Amon's ring summons demons, as one example. No sword play on his part.
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Aug 31, 2020 8:33:02 GMT -6
Agreed. 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. Yes, Howard's wizards and sorcerers don't use swords - far beneath their hellish attainments, one might conjecture. Thoth Amon's ring summons demons, as one example. No sword play on his part. There's a BIG difference between, "We don't see it happen," and "It's expressly forbidden because it interferes with their magic." I'm fairly certain if I dug through there's at least ONE instance in a Conan story of a spellcaster also wielding a blade. Certainly there is in the De Camp / Carter / Nyberg pastiche works and those, too, were an influence on Gygax. Indeed, at the time, the pastiches were synonymous with the Howard works. It was only years later that purists of Howard (like myself) became prevalent.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Aug 31, 2020 9:26:59 GMT -6
One issue not addressed in this thread that usually comes up earlier in these discussions is that if "metal interfering with magic" is the reason for the restrictions, then why are Magic-Users also forbidden from wearing non-metal armor, e.g., leather armor?
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Aug 31, 2020 10:44:45 GMT -6
One issue not addressed in this thread that usually comes up earlier in these discussions is that if "metal interfering with magic" is the reason for the restrictions, then why are Magic-Users also forbidden from wearing non-metal armor, e.g., leather armor? I mean, at that point we can also ask the question "Who would even want to use leather armor?" - at least in a 3LBB context without thieves. Barring a truly miserable roll for starting gold, with plate costing only 50 and mail costing a mere 30 gold pieces, it's a no-brainer for any character allowed to use armor. Like if I rolled a meager 60 gp to outfit a 1st level fighter, I would probably buy plate armor, two spears, a large sack, a small sack, and two days' worth of iron rations, and rely on other party members who rolled more favorably to bring the torches, rope, etc. If I got 50 or 40 gold, then downgrade to mail; and when making a cleric I would require an extra 10 gp in order to afford equivalent armor due to the higher cost of a mace compared to a spear, and wanting to also have a wooden cross for turning undead.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Sept 1, 2020 7:23:17 GMT -6
In early OD&D all hit points are 1D6 and all weapon damage is 1D6. This is for all classes. Then weapon damage and hit points diversified across the classes. This is why limited combat proficiency classes have weaker weapons.
1d10 weapon damage and hit points for Fighters, 1d8 Clerics, 1d6 Thieves, 1d4 Magic-Users.
The breadth of weapon utility within a class can be interesting, and may change damage amounts slightly, but I don't believe there is any simulation or thematic reason for withholding swords from Wizards. They are simply weaker combatants - in the traditional sense.
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Sept 1, 2020 9:45:30 GMT -6
One issue not addressed in this thread that usually comes up earlier in these discussions is that if "metal interfering with magic" is the reason for the restrictions, then why are Magic-Users also forbidden from wearing non-metal armor, e.g., leather armor? I mean, at that point we can also ask the question "Who would even want to use leather armor?" - at least in a 3LBB context without thieves. Barring a truly miserable roll for starting gold, with plate costing only 50 and mail costing a mere 30 gold pieces, it's a no-brainer for any character allowed to use armor. Like if I rolled a meager 60 gp to outfit a 1st level fighter, I would probably buy plate armor, two spears, a large sack, a small sack, and two days' worth of iron rations, and rely on other party members who rolled more favorably to bring the torches, rope, etc. If I got 50 or 40 gold, then downgrade to mail; and when making a cleric I would require an extra 10 gp in order to afford equivalent armor due to the higher cost of a mace compared to a spear, and wanting to also have a wooden cross for turning undead. In my Campaign, Magic users can wear any armor they wish. but it would be dumb for a player to do so. Why? Because I won’t give them any better AC than no armor. And it is cumbersome to boot. Magic users aren’t fighters, thus they just aren’t able to get any benefit from armor. And if they attack with anything other than a dagger, they won’t do any damage. Same reasons. Why wear leather? Well, who wants to be on a sinking galley dressed up in metal armor? That would suck.
|
|
ThrorII
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 112
|
Post by ThrorII on Sept 1, 2020 17:02:42 GMT -6
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. There are also no clubs in M&M or Sup I. That doesn't mean you can't have a club (I'd say they fall in to the mace/military pick/hammer catagory). Staves are just too iconic of a wizard's object not to allow them, in my opinion. In M&M, all weapons do 1d6, so whether the M-U uses a dagger or staff, it doesn't matter. When using Supp I, give the staff 1d4 damage. Again, it doesn't matter since that is what his dagger will do.
BTW, B/X gives the staff and club both 1-4 damage in their variable damage option.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Sept 1, 2020 21:36:23 GMT -6
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. On my bookshelf yesterday I found a almost-forgotten copy of "Changeling Earth", the third volume of the series. This is the one that Gygax mentions by name in Appendix N. I had been waiting to find the earlier volumes, but I decided to just go ahead and read this one right now. It's a quick read with super clear prose (I've read a bit of Saberhagen before - the Holmes Dracula-file & some early Berserker stories). The characterization is spare but sufficient for the story. I'm currently about 100 pages in. No mention of magic being broken by metal yet, but the setting is very Chainmail Fantasy Supplement/LBBs. There are two "cosmic" sides, the West and the East, which line up nicely with Law and Chaos, respectively, each faction having its own "monster" allies (flying reptiles and demons for Chaos, huge birds and elementals for Law), much like the OD&D Alignment table. The prevalence of elementals seems to be an influence on OD&D. And there's a clear precedent for a party of warriors with a magic-user in tow. It's not a low magic setting - both sides constantly use spells to try to gain an advantage over the enemy, although so far the spells seem to be more along the lines of curses, divinations and summonings rather than "blast 'em" (no fireballs or lightning bolts). One wizard rides around on a griffin. I also noticed that the original DAW cover on the copy I have has a demon on it that is a dead ringer Sutherland's Nycadaemon on the cover of D3 Vault of the Drow, all the way to the glint in the eyes:
|
|
|
Post by doublejig2 on Sept 1, 2020 21:40:55 GMT -6
As an aside, Frazetta doesn't present wizards in metal, if I'm not mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Sept 2, 2020 4:17:11 GMT -6
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. On my bookshelf yesterday I found a almost-forgotten copy of "Changeling Earth", the third volume of the series. This is the one that Gygax mentions by name in Appendix N. I had been waiting to find the earlier volumes, but I decided to just go ahead and read this one right now. It's a quick read with super clear prose (I've read a bit of Saberhagen before - the Holmes Dracula-file & some early Berserker stories). The characterization is spare but sufficient for the story. I'm currently about 100 pages in. No mention of magic being broken by metal yet, but the setting is very Chainmail Fantasy Supplement/LBBs. There are two "cosmic" sides, the West and the East, which line up nicely with Law and Chaos, respectively, each faction having its own "monster" allies (flying reptiles and demons for Chaos, huge birds and elementals for Law), much like the OD&D Alignment table. The prevalence of elementals seems to be an influence on OD&D. And there's a clear precedent for a party of warriors with a magic-user in tow. It's not a low magic setting - both sides constantly use spells to try to gain an advantage over the enemy, although so far the spells seem to be more along the lines of curses, divinations and summonings rather than "blast 'em" (no fireballs or lightning bolts). One wizard rides around on a griffin. I also noticed that the original DAW cover on the copy I have has a demon on it that is a dead ringer Sutherland's Nycadaemon on the cover of D3 Vault of the Drow, all the way to the glint in the eyes: Changeling Earth was the original name of the trilogy as well as the final volume. Gygax would've been referring to the trilogy. The first two volumes talk extensively about the issues with drawn swords and magic. It only came to be called Empire of the East later, when it was revised and re-issued in omnibus form.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Sept 3, 2020 13:52:42 GMT -6
I finished Changeling Earth. I enjoyed it; Saberhagen's prose is so easy to read. I would have enjoyed a bit more characterization but the style is similar to some other sci-fi/fantasy works that I've read from the '50-70's. I plan to return to the first two volumes once I track them down. I want to get the pre-D&D originals, as apparently the versions in the later omnibus are revised.
The "magic abhors violence" finally turned up on page 124: "When swords were out and blood was spilled, it was difficult for any magician to raise an effective spell..." That's the only mention of this in Vol 3.
Some other tidbits that reminded me of Gygaxian D&D:
The giant night birds being associated with the forces of the West could be one reason for Rocs being listed with Law in Men & Magic. Notably, however, the Rocs in Chainmail & D&D originally included the Giant Eagles of Tolkien, so that's an even more likely inspiration. (Saberhagen possibly even included the giant birds in his books because of the Giant Eagles of Tolkien).
Also, while never called "owls" (at least in Vol 3), they do greet with "Whoo", so the impression is of evolved owls. This could be an influence on the Giant Owls in the Monster Manual that are intelligent and capable of speech (although their own tongue rather than that of man as in Changeling Earth).
The imprisonment/slumber of Orcus reminded me of that Tharizdun in Greyhawk.
Demons can only be killed if their hidden life force is found, similar to the Demon Amulets introduce in Eldritch Wizardry.
One wizard puts a group of enemies in an "ensorcereled slumber" - a Sleep spell.
One character teleports by use of a single powerful word to a place of safety. While obviously this is just one pre-D&D instance of teleportation, the use of the single word is also reminiscent of the Cleric spell "Word of Recall" (introduced in Greyhawk).
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Sept 3, 2020 16:20:24 GMT -6
I may have to check out this Saberhagen series at some point. Thanks for the heads up!
As for why M-Us aren't allowed to use weapons, I think most people have it backwards. Early fantasy lit, including Conan, typically don't show wizards with swords because their inspiration is things like Arthurian Romance, Spencer's Faerie Queene, and the like, which have magicians who don't use swords and knights who don't use magic. It wasn't that learning or using magic somehow prevented the use of weapons, but that using weapons was something knights trained for from childhood. Magic isn't hard, in the medieval view. Once you knew how to read Latin, Greek, and/or Arabic, found the right books with the right recipes, and collected the proper materials, you could cast spells. Magic's a shortcut, a cheat, from the viewpoint of knights and warriors, who had to work hard to be as good as they are.
Some fantasy writers, like Howard, really played up this warrior/magician rivalry. Howard's all about honest heroes being better than those dastardly wizards. Those that are looser with the division, like Pratt & deCamp in the Incomplete Enchanter stories, still treat magic as being way easier, as long as you know the secret rules, like the Laws of Sympathy and Contagion.
This is why my eventual solution was:
+ Anyone can fight with a dagger, throw a punch, or kick/stomp. + Anyone can attack with any basic melee weapon or crossbow, but are limited to 1st level ability. + Special attacks like fighting from horseback, using whips or flails to entangle weapons or trip, or fighting in a unit like a phallanx, are restricted to Fighters. + Armor slows non-fighters more. + Spells can't be cast while holding a shield (need both hands free for casting.) + Magic weapons are only magical in the hands of classes they were made for.
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Sept 4, 2020 23:13:34 GMT -6
+ Anyone can attack with any basic melee weapon or crossbow, but are limited to 1st level ability. + Special attacks like fighting from horseback, using whips or flails to entangle weapons or trip, or fighting in a unit like a phallanx, are restricted to Fighters. So things like longbows (which are really strenuous) would be Fighter-only?
That makes sense, as melee weapons in 3LBB OD&D aren't really mechanically distinguished, so as long as Clerics/M-U's can't use the magical powers of magic swords, they don't actually gain any mechanical benefit from using a sword rather than a dagger (M-U) or mace (Cleric).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2020 4:39:54 GMT -6
One issue not addressed in this thread that usually comes up earlier in these discussions is that if "metal interfering with magic" is the reason for the restrictions, then why are Magic-Users also forbidden from wearing non-metal armor, e.g., leather armor? I mean, at that point we can also ask the question "Who would even want to use leather armor?" - at least in a 3LBB context without thieves. Barring a truly miserable roll for starting gold, with plate costing only 50 and mail costing a mere 30 gold pieces, it's a no-brainer for any character allowed to use armor. Like if I rolled a meager 60 gp to outfit a 1st level fighter, I would probably buy plate armor, two spears, a large sack, a small sack, and two days' worth of iron rations, and rely on other party members who rolled more favorably to bring the torches, rope, etc. If I got 50 or 40 gold, then downgrade to mail; and when making a cleric I would require an extra 10 gp in order to afford equivalent armor due to the higher cost of a mace compared to a spear, and wanting to also have a wooden cross for turning undead. A stealthy fighting-man would prefer leather armor, as it makes less sound while creeping through the black pits of Barsoom, etc.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Sept 5, 2020 11:21:22 GMT -6
+ Anyone can attack with any basic melee weapon or crossbow, but are limited to 1st level ability. + Special attacks like fighting from horseback, using whips or flails to entangle weapons or trip, or fighting in a unit like a phallanx, are restricted to Fighters. So things like longbows (which are really strenuous) would be Fighter-only? That makes sense, as melee weapons in 3LBB OD&D aren't really mechanically distinguished, so as long as Clerics/M-U's can't use the magical powers of magic swords, they don't actually gain any mechanical benefit from using a sword rather than a dagger (M-U) or mace (Cleric).
If you're going the simple route, yes, longbows would be Fighter-only under these rules. I do have special training rules that alter this -- non-Fighters can train in individual weapons, non-M-Us can learn individual spells and use spell scrolls for spells they know. Also, non-fighter archers can't aim at individual targets beyond short range, they can only participate in launching volleys of arrows at longer-range targets. Only fighters get to aim at an apple a hundred yards away. I still debate whether to set minimum Strength scores for each bow/weapon type, something like weapon length in cubits x 3 = minimum Strength.
|
|
|
Post by asaki on Sept 5, 2020 23:42:02 GMT -6
I always thought wizards just weren't trained how to use weapons, and/or would rather resort to powerful magicks. Swords and arrows would seem quite primitive if you knew how to launch giant fireballs.
If a magic-user REALLY wanted to use a sword, I would probably just give them a -4 to hit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2020 4:53:36 GMT -6
I always thought wizards just weren't trained how to use weapons, and/or would rather resort to powerful magicks. Swords and arrows would seem quite primitive if you knew how to launch giant fireballs. If a magic-user REALLY wanted to use a sword, I would probably just give them a -4 to hit. Wouldn't swords and arrows serve a distinct combat role from giant fireballs? A fireball is more like a grenade launcher. It's a "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" maneuver. It can also backfire horribly in close quarters combat. If a Magic-User were serving a military role - like a Battlemage commander or some such - in some fictional universes that person would be trained in a variety of both ranged and melee combat for versatility. This was probably the line of thinking that allowed multi-classing in AD&D and expanded OD&D later.
|
|
|
Post by asaki on Sept 6, 2020 13:18:34 GMT -6
It was just an example. Obviously, something like Magic Missile would be more akin to a bow and arrow.
|
|
|
Post by delta on Sept 12, 2020 19:16:40 GMT -6
BTW, B/X gives the staff and club both 1-4 damage in their variable damage option. Tiny detail: B and X don't entirely agree on this. Moldvay's Basic leaves the staff out of the Variable Weapon Damage Table, but includes the Snake Staff of which it says, "This magical staff is a Staff +1, and will inflict 2-7 (1d6 + 1) points of damage on a successful hit" (directly copied from the same item in OD&D Vol-2). You're right that in Cook's Expert the damage table includes the staff at 1d4 damage.
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Sept 13, 2020 1:08:05 GMT -6
Hmm, that's interesting. I guess the Snake Staff's d6+1 is just derived from the pre-Variable Weapon Damage OD&D then?
|
|
|
Post by asaki on Sept 13, 2020 16:55:34 GMT -6
"This magical staff is a Staff +1, and will inflict 2-7 (1d6 + 1) points of damage on a successful hit" That's a good catch. I was torn when making my own equipment list, because Rules Cyclopedia said 1d6...I can't find right now where the "variable weapon damage" chart is in Mentzer Expert, but it says 2gp vs. RC's 5gp. No price given in OD&D.
|
|
|
Post by Otto Harkaman on Sept 16, 2020 18:56:17 GMT -6
Tim Kask on TSR #3: Gary Gygax vs. Magic Users
|
|
|
Post by linebeck on Sept 18, 2020 15:02:35 GMT -6
Is a dagger a knife? And if it is, can a magic user use a a messer? A messer (German for "knife") is a single-edged sword with a knife-like hilt construction. Some could be quite long. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messer_(weapon) It is interesting that the historical distinction between dagger and sword turns on length of the blade, not on the inference that one is easier to use than the other. Intuitively, it doesn't seem to me that knife fighting requires less skill or is somehow easier to do than fighting with a sword for an untrained individual.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Sept 18, 2020 15:15:32 GMT -6
BTW, B/X gives the staff and club both 1-4 damage in their variable damage option. Tiny detail: B and X don't entirely agree on this. Moldvay's Basic leaves the staff out of the Variable Weapon Damage Table, but includes the Snake Staff of which it says, "This magical staff is a Staff +1, and will inflict 2-7 (1d6 + 1) points of damage on a successful hit" (directly copied from the same item in OD&D Vol-2). You're right that in Cook's Expert the damage table includes the staff at 1d4 damage. My impression is that a "combat staff", such as a staff of striking, can be used to attack with. Any other staff, such as a staff of commanding, is not suitable for use as a weapon and would suffer a -1 (or so) on "to-hit" rolls if a magic-user insisted on using one as such.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Sept 18, 2020 23:43:03 GMT -6
Is a dagger a knife? And if it is, can a magic user use a a messer? A messer (German for "knife") is a single-edged sword with a knife-like hilt construction. Some could be quite long. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messer_(weapon) It is interesting that the historical distinction between dagger and sword turns on length of the blade, not on the inference that one is easier to use than the other. Intuitively, it doesn't seem to me that knife fighting requires less skill or is somehow easier to do than fighting with a sword for an untrained individual. Very interesting, I had never heard of that kind of weapon. As a German I think it's funny that such a name would be used for a weapon of that length when I'm used to use the word for knives. As I had understood the distinction: A knife is a single-edged tool and weapon, whereas a dagger is a double-edged weapon. I've never read up on it but learned it like this as a kid. Not sure if this will be enough for a scholar. Fighting with daggers/knives would surely not be easier that fighting with a sword. Parrying with a dagger takes a lot more skill for someone without long-term training. But using a sword is much more exhausting due to the weight and if we suspect the attacking wizard (without the proper training) to be more or less a fool who stabs at the enemy while hoping to be ignored and/or not be hit by sheer luck, I guess it's more realistic that it's a small weapon which doesn't take a lot of strength. So a dagger will be a good choice for a wizard. Without training the weapon will be even more exhausting to use. (Even a wizard with 18 STR will have that problem, as for me, ability scores are always to be seen in context of class. So, a STR 18-MU will not be as strong as a STR 18-FM. Similarly, a FM with STR 10 will not have "average" strength for a human, but average strength for a FM.) A Fighting-Man with a dagger will use it to parry skillfully when possible, and use fighting techniques with every weapon he uses. That's the reason why I'm trying to find a good way to make AC more class-dependent, by the way, similar to attack bonuses. A skilled, trained fighter will always be harder to hit in man-to-man combat than the nerd in the long robe.
|
|
|
Post by asaki on Sept 19, 2020 0:17:38 GMT -6
That's the reason why I'm trying to find a good way to make AC more class-dependent, by the way, similar to attack bonuses. A skilled, trained fighter will always be harder to hit in man-to-man combat than the nerd in the long robe. Gary already did that in the Greyhawk supplement, it says dex bonuses to AC only apply to fighters.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Sept 19, 2020 0:36:25 GMT -6
True, that covers FM, but what about clerics (and thieves)?
Clerics are supposed to be skilled in fighting (not as much as the FM), and I like the idea of the thief as the dashing, sabre-wielding rogue.
My idea (which I'm not 100% happy with yet) so far is:
FM get their DEX bonus or half their level (whatever is higher) to their AC (up to +5 at name level and above). (That's why experienced FM are hard to kill even unarmoured.) Clerics get their DEX bonus to their AC as long as they only wear leather or weaker armour. Stronger armour hinders too much to enjoy the bonus. MUs get half their DEX bonus (round up) as a an evade bonus. Thieves get their DEX bonus or half their level (whatever is higher) to their AC (up to +5 at name level and above).
Of course, that leads to numbers bigger than usual and I'm unsure if that's too unbalancing at name level (we have never really played there and beyond).
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Oct 19, 2020 22:56:39 GMT -6
I plan to return to the first two volumes once I track them down. I want to get the pre-D&D originals, as apparently the versions in the later omnibus are revised. The "magic abhors violence" finally turned up on page 124: "When swords were out and blood was spilled, it was difficult for any magician to raise an effective spell..." That's the only mention of this in Vol 3. It's referenced a couple of times in earlier books, but never really explained.
"But things are just not favorable for magic. Too many swords are out, I suppose." Book 1 The Broken Lands, Chapter 10
"Elslood foresaw that his labor was likely to be futile. The subtler arts were hard to use against an enemy in the field, when swords were out and blood a-spilling. Elementals were sometimes employable in such situations, of course -" Book 1 The Broken Lands, Chapter 13
"the wizard Hann hauled out a short sword from under his cloak - evidently feeling his magic had turned unreliable with the onset of violence" Book 2 The Black Mountains, Chapter 3
Djinn are also compared to elementals, as opposed to demons (in book 2), which might also be a D&D connection.
And Som the Dead seems to be something like a lich - an 'undead' wizard of great power.
|
|