|
Post by Rhuvein on Jul 26, 2007 9:21:44 GMT -6
So, there's a picture/drawing of a barbarian on page 16 of the M&M, but no mention in any of the books about them. Is this simply a mistake? Is that drawing supposed to be a fighter or beserker? Just curious.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Jul 26, 2007 10:58:33 GMT -6
There are also illustrations of an "amazon" and "beautiful witch" (Vol. I, p. 27), a "Nazgul" (vol. III, p. 14) and "sprites" (vol. I, p. 6), none of which are specifically covered in the rules (though Vol. II mentions that Nazgul should be counted as spectres, and describes pixies as "air sprites" -- in Chainmail sprites and pixies are considered interchangeable, just like dwarves and gnomes, goblins and kobolds, elves and fairies, and wights and ghouls).
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 26, 2007 14:55:43 GMT -6
To me, "barbarian" has always been more like a race choice than a class. If a person wants to run a barbarian I just start them as Fighting Men and allow them to make rolls for hunting and fishing and other woodsy stuff.
So, I wouldn't count the illustration as a "mistake" but rather something to spark the imagination as to some of the possible options for Fighting Man. Foster pointed out the "beautiful witch", which I assume is similarly just a way to spark the imagination for the Magic User being something other than a Gandalf-type.
|
|
|
Post by Rhuvein on Jul 26, 2007 18:26:48 GMT -6
Thanks for your responses.
I'm really enjoying the artwork and original descriptions.
Here's another oddity, that y'all have probably noticed:
The drawing in the M&T, page 14 (Tom Wham, I think). Is that a thief then, picking the pocket of the MU in front of him, even though thieves were not in the M&M booklet?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2007 18:42:25 GMT -6
I agree with Finarvyn. I believe the illustrations are meant to induce the imagination to form various ideas & concepts for the players' P.C.
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on Jul 26, 2007 19:10:53 GMT -6
I always thought the picture of the Dwarf was surely a Giant. Isn't that a tree beside him?
|
|
|
Post by Rhuvein on Jul 26, 2007 19:20:09 GMT -6
I always thought the picture of the Dwarf was surely a Giant. Isn't that a tree beside him? Haha. And here's yet more weirdness: Gnomes and dwarves are listed under giant types in the table on page 18. On page 8, gnolls are said to be a cross between gnomes and trolls!!!
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 27, 2007 2:06:38 GMT -6
And here's yet more weirdness: Gnomes and dwarves are listed under giant types in the table on page 18. I don't have a table on p. 18. You couldn't by any chance share it with us, could you? (I have the sixth printing, which is missing a bunch of stuff.) Thanks! EDIT: Cleaned up a format oddity. (Admin)
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 27, 2007 6:38:36 GMT -6
The drawing in the M&T, page 14 (Tom Wham, I think). Is that a thief then, picking the pocket of the MU in front of him, even though thieves were not in the M&M booklet? I don't know anything about this. I don't see any drawings in Monsters & Treasures with magic users in them, let alone magic users getting their pockets picked. Care to give more details on this one?
|
|
|
Post by Rhuvein on Jul 27, 2007 8:20:28 GMT -6
And here's yet more weirdness: Gnomes and dwarves are listed under giant types in the table on page 18. I don't have a table on p. 18. You couldn't by any chance share it with us, could you? (I have the sixth printing, which is missing a bunch of stuff.) Thanks! Oops, so sorry. It's on page 18 of the Underworld and Wilderness booklet. I had all the books open yesterday and confused myself!
|
|
|
Post by Rhuvein on Jul 27, 2007 8:22:06 GMT -6
The drawing in the M&T, page 14 (Tom Wham, I think). Is that a thief then, picking the pocket of the MU in front of him, even though thieves were not in the M&M booklet? I don't know anything about this. I don't see any drawings in Monsters & Treasures with magic users in them, let alone magic users getting their pockets picked. Care to give more details on this one? Hmm, do you have an earlier print version of the book? I assume mine is the 6th print OCE version.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 27, 2007 8:53:57 GMT -6
Okay, got it, v. III, p. 18. Funny how I never noticed that before!
This would explain a bit, though. I used to have an old issue of the Dragon (not sure which one, now). It had an article compiling a survey of the chief causes of PC deaths.
"Giant Types" was number one. I thought it odd at the time that Kobolds, etc. were listed as Giant Types. (This was before I got my OCE.)
Now it makes sense!
------
Regarding the Tom Wham cartoon, now that you mention it, it does kinda look like a Thief is picking the Mage's pocket. But why would he be dumb enough to do it with the Cleric standing right there watching him?
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Jul 27, 2007 10:40:43 GMT -6
The Tom Wham cartoon in vol. II was added in the 6th (OCE) printing in 1977, and had originally appeared as the cover of TSR's Character Record Sheets. It replaces the "balrog" monster description from earlier printings. So yeah it is incongruous to show a thief picking a pocket when the thief class isn't described in the accompanying rules, but it's because the illo was added in 3+ years after the fact, not because Mr. Wham was anticipating the not-yet-published thief class in 1974...
|
|
serendipity
Level 4 Theurgist
Member #00-00-02
Bunny Master
Posts: 140
|
Post by serendipity on Jul 27, 2007 18:59:51 GMT -6
It makes me wonder about what the MU has been up to, since the cleric seems to be giving the thief his blessing to pick the MU's pocket. I'm also amused by the sentient sword, who seems to be the only one of the bunch of adventurers who is the least bit worried about what's ahead of them.
--Sere P.S. I know of Tom Wham from Snit Smashing and Snit's Revenge, but I had no idea he was involved with artwork in the white boxed set. I must pay better attention!
|
|
|
Post by Rhuvein on Jul 27, 2007 19:44:19 GMT -6
Tom did some artwork in the Holmes rulebook as well and that's one of my connects back to my start and love for D&D. I believe I've read or someone posted something about him being more of a cartoonist than artist. Foster may know more about this. He did artwork (cartoonish drawings) in the Monster Manual too. I met him briefly at the LGGC III. He is very quiet and softspoken, but does seem to attract many people to his gaming table, especially the "greats" from TSR/D&D ~ meaning Gary, Jim Ward, Frank, Ernie Gygax were always hanging out at his table or playing his games.
|
|
sham
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 385
|
Post by sham on Mar 10, 2008 23:34:01 GMT -6
|
|
casey777
Level 4 Theurgist
Herder of Chlen
Posts: 102
|
Post by casey777 on Mar 11, 2008 17:41:09 GMT -6
Pretty sure this is one of those things that Judges Guild ran with. IIRC they either had cultures / races if not outright classes for Amazon, Barbarian, Witch and likely more. Witch at least had several treatments in TSR magazines though technically NPC only.
Might be worth comparing Palladium Fantasy's Witch if you wanted a PC class.
|
|
|
Post by murquhart72 on Jul 19, 2017 9:20:33 GMT -6
Folks can pick pockets without being classified as a Greyhawk Thief. Barbarian might indicate a Fighting-Man (which is what appears to be pictured) or it could be a barbaric Magic-User or Cleric. Barbarian is a type of society, not a role classification in OD&D. People seem to read too much into pictures when OD&D classifies the role of a PC as either using magic (Magic-User), or not (Fighting-Man). With Clerics being there to balance the two a tad and give someone a chance to play as Van Helsing
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jul 19, 2017 9:38:56 GMT -6
Barbarian is a type of society at least for someone outside that society. The barbarians probably wouldn't call themselves that. Barbarian is (to me and my group) just a flavour of fighting-man. The picture could also show a pirate or amazon warrior and it might still be a fighting-man (or -woman) rules-wise.
|
|
|
Post by murquhart72 on Jul 20, 2017 17:02:21 GMT -6
My point exactly
|
|