|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 14, 2013 4:13:23 GMT -6
Not withstanding the fact that various weapons cost more, weigh more, require two-hands to use, or can attack at range, all mundane weapons are more-or-less equal in OD&D because they all deal 1-6 points of damage.
So there is no particular need to restrict the use of different mundane weapons. This is evident in the 3LBBs which give no such restrictions, stating only which magical weaponry can be employed...
Fighting-Men (M&M p6)
So fighting-men have the whole gamut of magical weaponry -- the principle feature of the fighting class.
Clerics (M&M p7)
Clerics are said to be restricted to only the blunt magic weapons. No restriction is placed on use of mundane weapons.
Magic-Users
Magic-users are interesting because the pertinent text was altered with the 5th printing. The 1st to 4th prints state:
(M&M p6, 1st-4th prints) (emphasis added)
Which follows on from the earlier definition given in Chainmail: (CM p30)
So M&M limits CM's earlier definition that "Wizards can handle magical weaponry". The key word in the M&M phrase is "but"; Wizards can use all the enchanted items except for weaponry BUT they can still use magical daggers.
The text was changed for the 5th-6th print: (M&M p6, 5th-6th prints)(emphasis added)
The revised version is seemingly more explicit with the pivotal "but" being replaced by a semicolon. Thus the dagger-clause "Magic-Users may arm themselves with daggers only" appears to have been promoted to a more general ruling which seems to imply: among all the mundane and magical weapons, magic-users can employ daggers only.
On the other hand, let's not forget that the dagger-clause still resides in a sentence which is entirely about what magical items are usable, which itself is a modifier of the original rule from Chainmail regarding which magical weapons are usable. Moreover, if we do read the dagger-clause as referring to more than just the enchanted arms and armour of the fighters, then we are faced with the contradictory presence of staves and wands which are usable exclusively by magic-users. If magic-users can't arm themselves with these, who can??
It seems, therefore, that a reasonable interpretation of what appears in M&M regarding use of weapons by magic-users is:
"Wizards can use all enchanted items except for arms and armour, of which they can only use daggers."
(In fact, there are other enchanted items which magic-users cannot employ e.g., clerical scrolls, staff of healing, snake staff, staff of withering, but that is a different argument).
So to sum up, the 3LBBs give explicit restrictions on what magical weaponry can be employed by non-fighters, but no such restrictions are given for mundane weaponry. Clerics and magic-users (and everyone else) are therefore able to employ mundane swords, spears, crossbows, and all the rest with impunity. And since all these weapons are more-or-less equal in OD&D terms, why not?
Enjoy ~!
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 14, 2013 4:45:32 GMT -6
Nice catch. I hadn't realized that there was a change in wording in 5th+ printing on this issue. (Not that it really changes things a lot.) Some thoughts in semi-random order::
1. Clearly, Chainmail allowed for MUs to use magic weapons but OD&D did not. (Except for daggers.)
2. I suspect that the sword is the big issue here, as there are extensive rules for cool magic swords with egos, etc, but no similar rules for magic axes, etc.
3. As far as non-magic weapons go, when I use the d6-only rules I often allow my MUs to use any weapon they like. As you noted, it has no impact on the game other than flavor. I'm leaning now toward a fighters do d6+1, clerics and thieves d6 , MUs do d6-1 rule -- this would also allow for MUs to wield non-magic swords if they like.
4. Part of me says, "Heck, let 'em use magic swords. As long as they don't get magic armor they won't want to be in battle much, anyway!" My thought is that all giving a MU a magic sword does is to remove it from the fight most of the time since the MU likes to hang out in the second row anyway.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 14, 2013 5:10:12 GMT -6
4. Part of me says, "Heck, let 'em use magic swords. As long as they don't get magic armor they won't want to be in battle much, anyway!" My thought is that all giving a MU a magic sword does is to remove it from the fight most of the time since the MU likes to hang out in the second row anyway. Let everyone use all weapons and even all magical weapons, by all means. But have magic weapons only function for members of the appropriate class. I.e., even an intelligent magic sword +2 that detects secret doors, speaks 6 languages, grants the ability to fly, and paralyses chaotic opponents on each hit functions as nothing more than a mundane sword in the hands of anybody other than a proper Fighting-Man.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Apr 14, 2013 8:48:53 GMT -6
In arneson's FFC there were magic swords exclusive for wizards and magic swords exclusive for fighters. 0d&d changed the wizard sword to staves (the staff of power and staff of the magi are both kind of examples of what a randomized wizard sword would look like).
A DM could introduce more magic staves of lesser power modeled after the FCC wizard sword, or even simply include wizard swords in their game--gygax's worry as he explicitely lays out in the magic item section of the DMG is that fighters should get permanent magic items and wizards should get magic items with charges for purposes of game balance.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Apr 14, 2013 9:27:23 GMT -6
According to Dragons at Dawn (p. 8), "We know there were no weapon restrictions" for priests/clerics in Arneson's old games.
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Apr 14, 2013 10:15:22 GMT -6
I'm not sure I believe in weapon restrictions at all. I feel mixed about it. But I definitely think attack progressions ought to be re-worked if wizards can use swords, for example. I find LotFP's approach sensible and elegant, and so I just use that; fighters get a little better at fighting every level up, and everyone else (the one other class in my game, the magic user), does not get better at all, ever. In that context, it doesn't seem so broken to have sorcerers wandering about with cool magical swords.
I also use my own variable weapon damage; hit dice are standard d6, small and weaker weapons do d4 (daggers, staves), standard weapons do d6 (sword, mace, axe), and big weapons do d8 (two handed sword, halberd, etc). It breaks the OD&D elegance of just two main dice, but then again a lot of us think of funky dice when we think of D&D, and variable damage just makes sense to me, and I'd rather represent it with d4 or d8 than with d6+1 or d6-1, etc.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Apr 14, 2013 10:54:38 GMT -6
Even if all weapons are essentially the same in combat, having mundane weapon restrictions affects what weapons you can *pick up* on the spur of the moment. If a dagger, mace, and spear all do the same damage, a fight in a room full of spears is different for a Fighter than for an M-U or Cleric because the Fighter can grab one of those spears and use it.
My house rule on mundane weapons is that any class other than Fighter only gets a combat bonus for the weapons they trained in, which in turn I define as "weapons bought at character creation". Should they pick up other weapons during an adventure, Magic-Users, Clerics and Thieves attack as a 1st level character, regardless of actual level. That lessens the effect of the room full of spears situation for low level characters. I also apply the "magic weapons and magic armor are only magical for specific classes allowed to use them" rule, so if the room is full of *magic* spears, Fighters again will have an advantage.
I'm thinking of also restricting pole arms and bows (not crossbows) to Fighters only. The former because these seem specifically to imply more than just an instinctive swing/jab skill, the latter because historically crossbows replaced bows precisely because they required less training.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 14, 2013 16:38:56 GMT -6
Even if all weapons are essentially the same in combat, having mundane weapon restrictions affects what weapons you can *pick up* on the spur of the moment. True, but that appears to be a house rule "back ported" to OD&D from later sources. a fight in a room full of spears is different for a Fighter than for an M-U or Cleric because the Fighter can grab one of those spears and use it. This is not true if you play according to what is printed in the 3LBBs. I have nothing against house rules like these; I love them. The reason I posted the above was merely to question the seemingly common misconception about mundane weapon restrictions in OD&D. From what I can see there are none.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 14, 2013 17:21:40 GMT -6
I definitely think attack progressions ought to be re-worked if wizards can use swords, for example. I find LotFP's approach sensible and elegant, and so I just use that; fighters get a little better at fighting every level up, and everyone else (the one other class in my game, the magic user), does not get better at all, ever. (Huge sidetrack...) Well, while we're talking house rules around advancing attack capability... I wrote a lengthy post about perceived weaknesses in the D&D combat system here. The crux of that post was that the notion of an improving "attack martix" is broken because: 1) It creates an unsustainable arms race between ACs and to-hit modifiers, 2) It is arbitrarily limited because there's no further benefit beyond requiring a 2 "to hit", 3) The ultimate result of the attack matrix (damage output over time) is overlapped -- and regularly overshadowed -- by variable damage (ogres, elementals, giants, dinosaurs, etc.), and also by multiple attacks per round. My solution to all this is to toss out the attack matrices altogether and replace them entirely by advancing numbers of attacks per round (1 attack per 2 HD, rounded up). I having been using this method in my own games for about six months or so now, and it seems to be working very nicely. The immediately notable impacts are: 1) AC 2 is "really good" rather than "bog standard", and 2) The combat math is way simpler than the target20 based system I was previously using. Most players just roll a d20 and "know" an 18+ hits AC2, and 3) Some fighters get a trivial addition (typically +1 or +2) to add to their roll(s), which makes them feel special.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Apr 14, 2013 17:47:51 GMT -6
Regarding mundane versus magic weapon restrictions:
The class descriptions in Men& Magic were clearly written from the point of view of Dungeons & Dragons being an expansion of Chainmail. In the latter, a Hero's, Superhero's, or Wizard's weapon is only ever specified when it is magical, and thus has an effect on the combat. Men & Magic approaches characters as a miniatures wargame in which each player controls one primary figure whose characteristics are very detailed, but they're still thought of as wargaming figures. Thus, there is no consideration of the figure with various mundane weapons—on the battlefield, he will always fight the same way. But magic weapons need to be addressed, because they change the combat outcome, and so they are restricted to some classes to control which classes can get certain game-changing bonuses.
This approach doesn't take into account situations like a magic-user losing his dagger and being handed a sword, while fighting off a monster. This doesn't happen in regular wargames. So the class descriptions only mention magic weapons. Most of the time this is enough. It's only when you start forcing some mismatched mundane weapons into characters' hands that you must question the meaning of the text.
Go whichever way you like, but I think the fact that the class descriptions only explicitly restrict magic weapons doesn't mean you're free to use any mundane weapon you want. The focus on magic weapons is simply a result of the game's wargaming derivation.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 14, 2013 18:20:41 GMT -6
So to sum up, the 3LBBs give explicit restrictions on what magical weaponry can be employed by non-fighters, but no such restrictions are given for mundane weaponry. Clerics and magic-users (and everyone else) are therefore able to employ mundane swords, spears, crossbows, and all the rest with impunity. And since all these weapons are more-or-less equal in OD&D terms, why not? According to this interpretation, magic-users should also not be limited in the form of non-magical armor, either, and be able to wear non-magical chain or plate?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 14, 2013 20:06:58 GMT -6
That's a great question Zenopus!
I will have to go searching for the earliest explicit restrictions on mundane armour too ;D
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 14, 2013 21:03:14 GMT -6
The reason I posted the above was merely to question the seemingly common misconception about mundane weapon restrictions in OD&D. From what I can see there are none. Well, yes, as far as I can recall, there is no place in the 3lbb's where it's made clear that Clerics are not supposed to be using normal edged weapons. So by, the book, that's a legit argument, and totally cool etc. if that's the way anyone may like to play it. But... Its clear that Gygax always meant to restrict all edged weapons from clerics and thought he conveyed as much in the rules. The response to Arnold Hendriks' review of 3lbb D&D that Gygax wrote in Stategic Review, Vol 1 no. 3 (autumn 1975), chastised Hendrik for incorrectly arming his cleric "with such edged weapons as spear and arrows...". We can bookend this remark with this from the Beyond This Point be Dragons 1973 draft rules, "However, it should be noted that Clerics cannot employ edged weapons, magic or otherwise." (BkI, pg 30). So while it may look like Gygax was creating restrictions exclusively for magic weapons in the 3lbb's, that doesn't appear to have been his actual intent. FWIW. Magic users and weapons are a more complicated issue....
|
|
machpants
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Supersonic Underwear!
Posts: 259
|
Post by machpants on Apr 14, 2013 21:51:44 GMT -6
I would imagine the intention is that characters are restricted in mundane weapons as they are in future editions/publications. However it is a neat little idea, and allows the low level MU to take advantage of the range of a bow. As he becomes more powerful with spells it will be less and less used, especially as it will never be magic. Clerics are a bit more problematic, in that the edged weapons: mundane = yes, magic = no is a bit weird.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 14, 2013 22:37:40 GMT -6
Clerics are a bit more problematic, in that the edged weapons: mundane = yes, magic = no is a bit weird. I'd rule that a cleric could use those magic weapons, but they would function exactly as their mundane equivalents. I.e., a cleric can use a +2 sword, but gets none of its magical benefits.
|
|
machpants
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Supersonic Underwear!
Posts: 259
|
Post by machpants on Apr 15, 2013 0:45:54 GMT -6
Yeah similar to my S&W house rules, classes other than fighters only get half the magic, round down (+1 = magic wep with no bonuses).
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 15, 2013 4:43:23 GMT -6
According to this interpretation, magic-users should also not be limited in the form of non-magical armor, either, and be able to wear non-magical chain or plate? I think the answer to this question is in the section on Elves (Men & Magic p8) which states: "They may use magic armour and still act as Magic-Users."This implies that they cannot act as Magic-Users while wearing non-magical armour, which in turn implies that neither may other magic-users.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 15, 2013 5:22:52 GMT -6
The preceding entry for magic-users says they are prohibited from magic armor. This entry follows this and says that elves *can* use "magical armor", unlike magic-users. I don't think it says anything specifically about non-magic armor for magic-users or elves.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 15, 2013 5:39:54 GMT -6
Its clear that Gygax always meant to restrict all edged weapons from clerics and thought he conveyed as much in the rules. The whole point of this thread is that it is not clear in the 3LBBs. chastised Hendrik for incorrectly arming his cleric "with such edged weapons as spear and arrows...". I just reread that editorial. Here's what EGG wrote: (The Strategic Review 1.3, p 1) 1. EGG considered the review biased, and inaccurate and ignored it completely. 2. Someone played a cleric armed, completely, with edged weapons. So we have it that EGG thought the review was inaccurate, and that he ignored it completely. So he is unlikely to have given the detail of it overmuch consideration. Also, given that the 3LBBs don't state clerics can't employ mundane spears, it shouldn't be any surprise that someone reading D&D for the first time selects these for his cleric. Why wouldn't you? In any case, I don't read this editorial as a compelling clarification of the OD&D rules. We can bookend this remark with this from the Beyond This Point be Dragons 1973 draft rules, "However, it should be noted that Clerics cannot employ edged weapons, magic or otherwise." (BkI, pg 30). If I remember rightly you believe the BTPBD manuscript was authored by DA. I also recall there are others who contend otherwise. BTPBD may be DA's work (I have no opinion either way), but the statement above seems to contradict this: According to Dragons at Dawn (p. 8), "We know there were no weapon restrictions" for priests/clerics in Arneson's old games. And... So while it may look like Gygax was creating restrictions exclusively for magic weapons in the 3lbb's, that doesn't appear to have been his actual intent. That may well be the truth of it Aldarron. But, as I've stated previously, I'm more concerned with what was printed than the "actual intent" because that it what thousands of D&D players are dealing with at the game table.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 15, 2013 5:47:12 GMT -6
The preceding entry for magic-users says they are prohibited from magic armor. This entry follows this and says that elves *can* use "magical armor", unlike magic-users. Agreed. I don't think it says anything specifically about non-magic armor for magic-users or elves. I think it's ambiguous; it can be interpreted both ways
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Apr 15, 2013 7:12:26 GMT -6
Let's not forget that a novice player who doesn't read the rules - any version of the rules! - closely might just assume that there's no reason a cleric shouldn't wield a spear. Even recent versions of D&D which present the rules in almost unbearably belabored technical language are played on a regular basis in ways that diverge from the rules by people (often children, one imagines) who just don't care to plow through a tome before jumping into the game. (I had this experience with a game of Pathfinder recently.)
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Apr 15, 2013 12:25:08 GMT -6
Hold on a second. It's all well and good to argue textual interpretations, but does anyone here actually contend that magic-users were intended to be able to use mundane weapons besides daggers? Not just "could be read that way," but full-on "that's what the authors really meant?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2013 12:32:01 GMT -6
Well, the way Gary actually PLAYED the game is that Clerics could use only non edged weapons, magic users could use no armor and only fight with daggers. This was true whether magical or mundane.
Also note that the CHAINMAIL description -- "Wizards fight as two Armored Foot" -- is for the CHAINMAIL 1:20 system, which subsumes weapon. "Fight as two Armored Foot" is meaningless in the Man to Man system -- two Armored Foot with daggers will fight much differently from two Armored Foot with halberds.
|
|
paulg
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 75
|
Post by paulg on Apr 15, 2013 12:38:43 GMT -6
Hold on a second. It's all well and good to argue textual interpretations, but does anyone here actually contend that magic-users were intended to be able to use mundane weapons besides daggers? Not just "could be read that way," but full-on "that's what the authors really meant?" It's a plausible reading, and some groups may have played that way. I suspect the sentence in question doesn't figure into authorial intent regarding mundane weapons at all—it's mostly about protecting the use of magic swords as a fighting-man class ability.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 15, 2013 14:47:46 GMT -6
I just reread that editorial. Here's what EGG wrote: (The Strategic Review 1.3, p 1) 1. EGG considered the review biased, and inaccurate and ignored it completely. 2. Someone played a cleric armed, completely, with edged weapons. So we have it that EGG thought the review was inaccurate, and that he ignored it completely. So he is unlikely to have given the detail of it overmuch consideration. I don't see there being really any doubt that Gygax pointed out the edged weapon comment precisely to highlight his contention that Hendrik had an inaccurate grasp of the rules. If I remember rightly you believe the BTPBD manuscript was authored by DA. I also recall there are others who contend otherwise. BTPBD may be DA's work (I have no opinion either way), but the statement above seems to contradict this: I made an argument that BTPbD was a draft over which Arneson had the last hand. Subsequent information has pointed more toward Gygax, at least for the typing of it, but It doesn't matter because ultimately it is a pre publication draft which, just as with the published game, springs from the input from both authors, and, as was mentioned, the weapon restrictions were a Gygax thing, not a feature of play in Blackmoor.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 15, 2013 16:53:56 GMT -6
Well, the way Gary actually PLAYED the game is that Clerics could use only non edged weapons, magic users could use no armor and only fight with daggers. This was true whether magical or mundane. Yes, it's well understood that D&D was rarely played "as written", even by its authors. That's why it's interesting to note how what is written differs from our cumulative understanding of how it's done. I don't see there being really any doubt that Gygax pointed out the edged weapon comment precisely to highlight his contention that Hendrik had an inaccurate grasp of the rules. So (on the basis of the one tiny snippet we have) it would seem to be a case of EGG criticising the reviewer for playing the rules "as written" rather than as he played himself. EGG's comment does also seem, on the face of it, rather counter to the notion of a "free wheeling, toolbox, no absolute rules" style of game. Doubtless this was all in response to a preexisting tension between EGG and the reviewer... but still, it doesn't seem to me to be a watertight case.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Apr 15, 2013 18:09:47 GMT -6
What does the above quote (pg. 14 Reformatted LLB) mean if both a medium and a veteran both wear plate armor and carry a sword and shield? What does +1 pip on the hit points do to make the FM capable of defending the MU?
If the veteran is assumed to have brought the plate armor and weapons from his previous campaigns (as Chainmail says they come equiped with the best armor and weapons available), what is it about the medium that allows him to start the game with plate armor?
In a game of "archetypes", which archetypical wizard wore plate armor and wielded a sword? Certainly not the jack vance types. Certainly not in the artwork popular in the 1960's and 70's where wizards were old men with long beards and pointy hats. Interesting discussion none the less. I certainly agree that wizards wielded magic swords in chainmail and in arneson's FFC, but this was deliberately omitted in 0d&d (instead opting for magical staves).
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Apr 15, 2013 19:28:23 GMT -6
In a game of "archetypes", which archetypical wizard wore plate armor and wielded a sword? Certainly not the jack vance types. While I agree with you about armor, I think plenty of archetypical wizards wielded swords: Gandalf in The Hobbit and The Lord of the RingsEibon in Clark Ashton Smith's "The Door to Saturn" Ulan Dhor in Jack Vance's The Dying EarthKoura in Ray Harryhausen's film The Golden Voyage of Sinbad ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2013 19:30:02 GMT -6
Jesus. What is it with people wanting to achieve a maximal level of the most strained, twisted interpretation of every f*cking word ever written?
It reminds me of fourth-rate theologians doing midrash.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2013 19:31:49 GMT -6
Yes, it's well understood that D&D was rarely played "as written", even by its authors. "Well understood" by people who weren't there. Gary and Dave made the enormous mistake of assuming people were reasonable.
|
|