|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 16, 2021 7:24:50 GMT -6
You've just completed your manuscripts for the Basic and Expert sets and they are off to print-
You now are commissioned to produce a Companion set. You are given the same format. 64 pg rulebook and a 32-ish page Module.
What does your set look like? Rules and Adventure?
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jun 16, 2021 13:06:07 GMT -6
The notes on characters of levels 15-36 on page X8 would be fleshed out and not contradicted.
Demi-humans are out of luck. No further goodies for them!
Clerics would have a new turn undead table for all the powerful undead that can't possibly be turned by clerics of less than 15th level.
Supplement I: GREYHAWK would be raided for cleric spells of levels 6 and 7, as well as for magic-user spells of levels 7-9.
High-level monsters from A/D&D (beholders, iron golems, liches, etc.) would be included in the monsters section, as would a lot of brand new monsters with loads of HD. About 100 monsters total, pretty much out of the league of characters of less than 15th level. There would be at least one undead type that only clerics of 30th or higher level could turn. True dragons (think Ancalagon the Black), true giants (100' tall), things with fifty heads and/or tentacles, etc. I certainly would not waste space with (for example) a new humanoid with 4 HD which could be defeated by a minotaur. Crazy elementals with crazy abilities and with crazy numbers of HD. Polyhedral monsters. Chimeric results of experimentation by high-level wizards. Vast protoplasmic monsters that would have black puddings for pets. Etc. The monsters section would be my favorite to write.
Treasures: Mithril and adamant and orichalcum. Gems as wondrous as the Arkenstone and the Silmarils. Jewelry as wondrous as the Nauglamir. Magic items raided from Supplement I: GREYHAWK and from the AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide. Up to +5 enchantments. Artifacts and relics.
Rules for warfare that are extrapolated from D&D and are fun and simple. Think Delta's Book of War.
And there you go.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 18, 2021 6:52:24 GMT -6
I'm surprised more people don't have any thoughts on this. I was completely unimpressed with Frank's actual Companion set. At the time, we had not been playing D&D for a couple of years, and I was very excited to see it, thinking it may light that spark again for us. So disappointed once I bought and read through. I've often wondered how I would have done it differently, and wondered what other people wanted/expected to see as well. geoffrey You totally nailed it on Monsters and Magic Items. As I never saw "warfare" and "domain play" as a thing in our group or even some of the other games I sat in on during those early years, I'd be inclined not to include rules for such (instead adding a supplemental volume for those who did ) I think I would have pushed more towards the "Epic". Not in a Tolkien sense, but rather something like Elric/Corum, or Greek Mythology. More about The Cosmic Struggle. Adventures on different worlds/dimensions/planes (but not something codified like TGW, and definitely not anything like Planescape). Not solely these types of adventures, but just guidelines and options for this sort of thing. I can't help but think how awesome it would have been for Tom & Zeb to collaborate on another pulp S&S influenced adventure, but now for high level play. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jun 18, 2021 9:24:04 GMT -6
As I never saw "warfare" and "domain play" as a thing in our group or even some of the other games I sat in on during those early years, I'd be inclined not to include rules for such (instead adding a supplemental volume for those who did ) I think I would have pushed more towards the "Epic". Not in a Tolkien sense, but rather something like Elric/Corum, or Greek Mythology. More about The Cosmic Struggle. Adventures on different worlds/dimensions/planes (but not something codified like TGW, and definitely not anything like Planescape). Not solely these types of adventures, but just guidelines and options for this sort of thing. I can't help but think how awesome it would have been for Tom & Zeb to collaborate on another pulp S&S influenced adventure, but now for high level play. Agreed on all but a minor point: The warfare rules I'm thinking of would be perhaps 4 pages (out of a 64-page rulebook). I'm not thinking of the warfare rules as its own game within a game, but rather as a way for the DM to fairly and reasonably adjudicate large battles that the PCs might find themselves in. REH's Conan found himself in a great many battles, as did Elric. Something like this: The PCs are receiving their rewards from a kingdom of elves that they assisted. Present are 200 elves of 1st level, a couple dozen elves of levels 2nd through 10th, a herd of 21 centaurs, a grove of 11 treants, and perhaps some sprites and/or pixies and/or dryads. Suddenly an orc attack! 300 orcs with leader-types, a dozen ogres, 5 trolls, and a black dragon attack the elf kingdom! Now what? The short and simple rules I envision would enable the DM to determine the outcome of the battle, while allowing the PCs to influence said outcome in a fun manner. No miniatures, battlemats, counters, terrain, etc. required.  |
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Jun 18, 2021 10:08:35 GMT -6
"Companion" scale level progression would bring players in line with the the gods of GD&H. Besides, like Geoffrey said, demi-human races top out in the Expert rules. So, by this measure, demi-humans are out of luck. Poor hobbits max out at at level 8. There needs to be some alternative type of advancement developed for a "Companion" set, By level 36, Elves could be made of pure energy, for all we know.
"Expert" directs players to Swords & Spells for mass combat. The specialist mercenaries of Expert could be soldiers and the wilderness adventures wouldn't have to be about just getting from town to the dungeon if mass combat were fleshed out. Morale also needs to start counting for more, in my opinion.
Agreed, that the Greyhawk monsters and spell lists need to finally appear in total in a Companion set. We could go further to include Drow and Mind-Flayers. It might be nice to see a few artifacts included, also.
As for the module, I would probably set it on Mars. No space travel. Just gate travel. It would be a city adventure a la Judges Guild with two or more new playable races and weird tech devices. Magic would work strangely here.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 18, 2021 12:33:10 GMT -6
As I never saw "warfare" and "domain play" as a thing in our group or even some of the other games I sat in on during those early years, I'd be inclined not to include rules for such (instead adding a supplemental volume for those who did ) I think I would have pushed more towards the "Epic". Not in a Tolkien sense, but rather something like Elric/Corum, or Greek Mythology. More about The Cosmic Struggle. Adventures on different worlds/dimensions/planes (but not something codified like TGW, and definitely not anything like Planescape). Not solely these types of adventures, but just guidelines and options for this sort of thing. I can't help but think how awesome it would have been for Tom & Zeb to collaborate on another pulp S&S influenced adventure, but now for high level play. Agreed on all but a minor point: The warfare rules I'm thinking of would be perhaps 4 pages (out of a 64-page rulebook). I'm not thinking of the warfare rules as its own game within a game, but rather as a way for the DM to fairly and reasonably adjudicate large battles that the PCs might find themselves in. REH's Conan found himself in a great many battles, as did Elric. Something like this: The PCs are receiving their rewards from a kingdom of elves that they assisted. Present are 200 elves of 1st level, a couple dozen elves of levels 2nd through 10th, a herd of 21 centaurs, a grove of 11 treants, and perhaps some sprites and/or pixies and/or dryads. Suddenly an orc attack! 300 orcs with leader-types, a dozen ogres, 5 trolls, and a black dragon attack the elf kingdom! Now what? The short and simple rules I envision would enable the DM to determine the outcome of the battle, while allowing the PCs to influence said outcome in a fun manner. No miniatures, battlemats, counters, terrain, etc. required. That sounds awesome, and I would totally love something like that incorporated. Thanks for your clarification. |
|
Parzival
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 215
|
Post by Parzival on Jun 18, 2021 22:50:54 GMT -6
Agreed on all but a minor point: The warfare rules I'm thinking of would be perhaps 4 pages (out of a 64-page rulebook). I'm not thinking of the warfare rules as its own game within a game, but rather as a way for the DM to fairly and reasonably adjudicate large battles that the PCs might find themselves in. REH's Conan found himself in a great many battles, as did Elric. Something like this: The PCs are receiving their rewards from a kingdom of elves that they assisted. Present are 200 elves of 1st level, a couple dozen elves of levels 2nd through 10th, a herd of 21 centaurs, a grove of 11 treants, and perhaps some sprites and/or pixies and/or dryads. Suddenly an orc attack! 300 orcs with leader-types, a dozen ogres, 5 trolls, and a black dragon attack the elf kingdom! Now what? The short and simple rules I envision would enable the DM to determine the outcome of the battle, while allowing the PCs to influence said outcome in a fun manner. No miniatures, battlemats, counters, terrain, etc. required. That sounds awesome, and I would totally love something like that incorporated. Thanks for your clarification. Isn’t that exactly what War Machine is? Granted, I never used it, but I’ve only ever heard it praised as a system for quickly resolving massive battles without going into a full scale game structure involving miniatures or counters, etc.. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 19, 2021 3:28:55 GMT -6
I've spent a lot of time tinkering with more abstract combat resolution for OD&D.
I'm interested to see how "War Machine" handles it... do we have a link or reference to WM for absolute beginners?
|
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Jun 19, 2021 7:09:47 GMT -6
I've spent a lot of time tinkering with more abstract combat resolution for OD&D. I'm interested to see how "War Machine" handles it... do we have a link or reference to WM for absolute beginners? I couldn't find a summary. I think you'd just have to spring for a pdf of Rules Cyclopedia at Drive-thru. The mass combat rules are just a half dozen pages long if you discount the siege rules. I have some recollection of this. Movement is hex based. It's up to the dm to designate what the hex measures (5 miles, 6 miles, 12 miles across). When opposing forces occupy the same hex, the defender is obligated to fight. There are no melee turns because melee, missile fire, and maneuvering aren't covered in war machine. War Machine isn't a tactical level game. There is basic d6 initiative to see who has the option of declaring an attack. There is a combat resolution table, d100 based. The table will give you casualties for both sides plus routs and retreats. Retreating units move immediately out of pursuit range of the attackers. The units must be evenly matched in troop strength. Troop types (light foot, armored horse, etc.) are just different types of mercenaries that you can hire out of the Specialists lists in another chapter. They have there individual weapons listed along with them in the price list. Weapons count for a modifier to the d100 roll. Training also counts, if you can keep them employed for some number of weeks before a battle. Tactics(optional rule) is also a modifier to the d100 roll, but it's just a Roshambo type mechanic, like the old jousting table in Chainmail. You choose a tactic from a list and your opponent chooses another tactic. The tactics are revealed simultaneously and looked up on different table. There are only a few very general tactics to choose from. The result of the Tactics table gives the modifier. Oh, time scale is a day. So, this d100 conflict represents a full day of combat. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jun 19, 2021 10:10:06 GMT -6
This "War Machine" sounds promising. I'm going to have to look into that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2021 11:46:42 GMT -6
It's one of the rules I never used as a kid. Mostly because it's a whole other game and we always preferred the smaller scale stuff. Kings and generals are NPCs. PCs are adventurers. They're definitely not Immortals either. How boring would it be? Like a video game with cheat codes. Becoming a godlike being is one of the lamest ideas D&D ever tried. Keep that crap out of my Elf game.
|
|
Parzival
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 215
|
Post by Parzival on Jun 19, 2021 12:50:47 GMT -6
I've spent a lot of time tinkering with more abstract combat resolution for OD&D. I'm interested to see how "War Machine" handles it... do we have a link or reference to WM for absolute beginners? was first detailed in the (Mentzer) Dungeons & Dragons Companion Set. It consists of 6 pages total (p.12-17) in the Dungeon Masters Companion: Book Two (“Book One” being the Players Companion). The RC expands the system to include detailed siege warfare, but otherwise on a quick skim the Companion Rules and RC rules appear to be the same. The War Machine does include rules for PCs’ influence on the battle, particularly through adventuring scenarios such as reconnaissance, spying, raids, assassinations of opposing leaders, and the like, so you can conduct the adventure and then at the end of the session apply the results to the battle and determine the outcome. Also, PC abilities can to some extent affect the fight (such as via certain spells or magic items). The whole thing should be readily usable for B/X, as the few places where B/X and BECMI differ won’t affect The War Machine’s formulas at all. The Companion books and the RC are available from DriveThruRPG.com as PDFs and hard copies. All are worth the price. |
|
Parzival
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 215
|
Post by Parzival on Jun 19, 2021 13:26:08 GMT -6
The units must be evenly matched in troop strength. That sentence might be a bit misleading. Are you referring to that an army is divided into units of the same type and “Battle Rating” (as say an army made of elves, men and dwarves would be divided into distinct units of each)? Or are you referring to the process of splitting up an army for match ups against a larger force, so that each ratio is easy to do? |
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Jun 19, 2021 14:31:55 GMT -6
The units must be evenly matched in troop strength. That sentence might be a bit misleading. Are you referring to that an army is divided into units of the same type and “Battle Rating” (as say an army made of elves, men and dwarves would be divided into distinct units of each)? Or are you referring to the process of splitting up an army for match ups against a larger force, so that each ratio is easy to do? The second |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 19, 2021 17:03:18 GMT -6
Thanks Parzival and captainjapan. I have copies of both those books. I'll look into it and maybe report back if I have any salient thoughts... |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 19, 2021 19:51:17 GMT -6
That sounds awesome, and I would totally love something like that incorporated. Thanks for your clarification. Isn’t that exactly what War Machine is? Granted, I never used it, but I’ve only ever heard it praised as a system for quickly resolving massive battles without going into a full scale game structure involving miniatures or counters, etc.. I don't own the set anymore. I remember the rules being pretty fiddly as they tied into the "kingdom building" section of the book. Others have elaborated a bit further,a nd I would defer to them. These days I might have some use for something like geoffrey posted- but if the "mass battles" rules are interconnected with a "kingdom building" style of play and mechanics- not my thing, |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 20, 2021 10:57:45 GMT -6
B/X goes through level 14, right? I would have toasted our fine work and called it a day. I hardly every go over level 10 anyway.  |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 20, 2021 11:48:52 GMT -6
B/X goes through level 14, right? I would have toasted our fine work and called it a day. I hardly every go over level 10 anyway. I got a chuckle out of this. I don't really either Fin. Nobody said your Companion set has to mean/address higher level PCs though. It still could contain more threats and treasure, tools and advice for different styles of play (like the Moorcock-esque planar or mythology stuff I mentioned), etc. Geoffrey's mass combat rules, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jun 20, 2021 16:23:02 GMT -6
I think a lot of people's ideas are coloured by the BECMI Companion when thinking of what a B/X Companion could have been. What if, instead, it was a "Companion" in the way those books were written for other games - a set of extra, optional rules, essays, articles, etc. Anyway, that just popped into my head. It's not what I would have done, I would have followed the hints dropped in Expert and used the same book format to bring the game up to 36th level.
I think domain gaming was the big flop as far as B/X was concerned - apart from one or two anecdotes over the years I have never heard of any group that really got into this, and as such my Companion would focus more on the personal heroics shenanigans of high-level characters than their stronghold management or mass combat.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Jun 20, 2021 19:47:51 GMT -6
If we were to reach backwards into OD&D for topics unrealized in B/X, maybe there would be some promising new subjects for a theoretical Companion book. From memory:
rules for miniature figures - Swords and Spells
real and literary mythological characters playable as npc's - Gods Demigods & Heroes
the new magic - Psionics - Eldritch Wizardry
Hit Locations - Blackmoor
tricks and traps - Greyhawk
I don't remember any of these topics being revisited in B/X. Maybe these are the purview of Companion rules. Aerial Combat was my next thought. I know there's a blurb about aerial in the Expert Book, still...
|
|
Parzival
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 215
|
Post by Parzival on Jun 20, 2021 19:52:23 GMT -6
Isn’t that exactly what War Machine is? Granted, I never used it, but I’ve only ever heard it praised as a system for quickly resolving massive battles without going into a full scale game structure involving miniatures or counters, etc.. I don't own the set anymore. I remember the rules being pretty fiddly as they tied into the "kingdom building" section of the book. Others have elaborated a bit further,a nd I would defer to them. These days I might have some use for something like geoffrey posted- but if the "mass battles" rules are interconnected with a "kingdom building" style of play and mechanics- not my thing, Actually, The War Machine isn’t tied to the kingdom building rules at all. The system is fairly generic on that point; the PCs could be the rulers, but they could also just be significant leaders OR they might not even be battle participants at all, with only their adventuring efforts to aid the battle coming in to play. All The War Machine does is provide a formula and chart for resolving mass battles based on troop types and some strategic efforts. A battle, or even a war, could involve nothing but NPCs, up to the kings themselves, with the results affecting the PCs secondarily. But The War Machine can be used for “Dominion” play, obviously, and also rather obviously is expected to be a part of that— but no actual “Dominion” play is required to use the system. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jun 20, 2021 20:26:01 GMT -6
TSR's 1975 Empire of the Petal Throne FRPG has rules in a single paragraph for larger combats:
|
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Jun 20, 2021 20:33:20 GMT -6
Here's another idea, if just adding rows to the XP progression tables won't cut it, why not compile a list of systems from OSR material(only what you consider the most interesting among the galaxy of options we now have). Here are two examples of minigames that I had in mind: Carousing by Jeff Reints The Monster Menu-all by Skerples For the more serious-minded, we might include an elaboration on Philotomy's Mythic Underworld including why dwarves are so important in dungeons. Or, devote some space to teach dm's the " open table" playstyle that supposedly accommodated up to 50 players in the original Greyhawk or Blackmoor. What's some other indispensable third party material that we might use to fill 64 pages of Companion rules? It doesn't have to be new. |
|
|
|
Post by asaki on Jun 21, 2021 0:56:53 GMT -6
Agreed, that the Greyhawk monsters and spell lists need to finally appear in total in a Companion set. We could go further to include Drow and Mind-Flayers. It might be nice to see a few artifacts included, also. That's what I was thinking. Just add in a bunch of the OD&D stuff that's missing, and maybe some of Gary's bits from the magazines as well. Add the Druid and Paladin classes, and their spells. Any magic items that might be missing. Maybe the artifacts from EW? |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 21, 2021 5:33:46 GMT -6
I think domain gaming was the big flop as far as B/X was concerned - apart from one or two anecdotes over the years I have never heard of any group that really got into this, and as such my Companion would focus more on the personal heroics shenanigans of high-level characters than their stronghold management or mass combat. Agreed. Putting domain info into BECMI was almost a step backwards in game evolution. I think that a lot of RPGers at the early part of D&D did domain play because that's where it started, not because they really wanted to play that way. Miniatures and wargames came first and were often army or barony level, but once folks got the notion of "one player, one character" they felt like that was a lot more interesting than commanding armies. My group played domain stuff early on, but by the time AD&D came out most of my players had pretty much lost interest in that stuff and I haven't had a group since with significant interest. That's been my experience. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 21, 2021 6:48:35 GMT -6
Here's another idea, if just adding rows to the XP progression tables won't cut it, why not compile a list of systems from OSR material(only what you consider the most interesting among the galaxy of options we now have). Here are two examples of minigames that I had in mind: Carousing by Jeff Reints The Monster Menu-all by Skerples For the more serious-minded, we might include an elaboration on Philotomy's Mythic Underworld including why dwarves are so important in dungeons. Or, devote some space to teach dm's the " open table" playstyle that supposedly accommodated up to 50 players in the original Greyhawk or Blackmoor. What's some other indispensable third party material that we might use to fill 64 pages of Companion rules? It doesn't have to be new. One of the fantastic things that has come out of the OSR and the indy movement for me are the "random" tables. Whether it's Dungeons/other locations, or Adventure/Plot builders, or Hexcrawl/Wilderness area builders. I would love to see that sort of thing. Gary was on to something back in the day, but it's strange that the TSR era never really took random tables further, instead sticking mostly to* random dungeon builders, treasure, items/item properties, and monsters by environment/dungeon level. Maybe because typing up tables was a huge PITA back in those days. Dave Hargrave owed his typist a life debt  *And Harlots, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 21, 2021 8:04:06 GMT -6
Speaking of 3PP -
I picked up Barratria (sp) Games' The Companion Expansion back when it was first released on Lulu (10 years? 12 years? ago..), and I took a gander through the B/X Companion (designer/company unknown to me) when it was released, and I found neither one satisfying.
Anyone else own these? The Companion Expansion was sort of like the Advanced book for LL. It just added classes and races, and monsters and treasure. But in a very unsatisfying way. Just a book of AD&D to D&D conversions, if you will.
I cannot recall details about the B/X Companion, but It struck me as "meh" at the time as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2021 8:24:37 GMT -6
Here's another idea, if just adding rows to the XP progression tables won't cut it, why not compile a list of systems from OSR material(only what you consider the most interesting among the galaxy of options we now have). Here are two examples of minigames that I had in mind: Carousing by Jeff Reints The Monster Menu-all by Skerples For the more serious-minded, we might include an elaboration on Philotomy's Mythic Underworld including why dwarves are so important in dungeons. Or, devote some space to teach dm's the " open table" playstyle that supposedly accommodated up to 50 players in the original Greyhawk or Blackmoor. What's some other indispensable third party material that we might use to fill 64 pages of Companion rules? It doesn't have to be new. One of the fantastic things that has come out of the OSR and the indy movement for me are the "random" tables. Whether it's Dungeons/other locations, or Adventure/Plot builders, or Hexcrawl/Wilderness area builders. I would love to see that sort of thing. Gary was on to something back in the day, but it's strange that the TSR era never really took random tables further, instead sticking mostly to* random dungeon builders, treasure, items/item properties, and monsters by environment/dungeon level. Maybe because typing up tables was a huge PITA back in those days. Dave Hargrave owed his typist a life debt *And Harlots, of course. I'm a fan of FGG's "Tome of Adventure Design" for this purpose. Sort of a slicker and more evolved execution of Ready Ref Sheets or the old DMG tables. I'm also a big fan of Table Fables and the New Big Dragon d30 supplements. They serve this purpose well. And of course the blogosphere is chock full of useful material. |
|
Parzival
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 215
|
Post by Parzival on Jun 21, 2021 10:46:35 GMT -6
I think domain gaming was the big flop as far as B/X was concerned - apart from one or two anecdotes over the years I have never heard of any group that really got into this, and as such my Companion would focus more on the personal heroics shenanigans of high-level characters than their stronghold management or mass combat. Agreed. Putting domain info into BECMI was almost a step backwards in game evolution. I think that a lot of RPGers at the early part of D&D did domain play because that's where it started, not because they really wanted to play that way. Miniatures and wargames came first and were often army or barony level, but once folks got the notion of "one player, one character" they felt like that was a lot more interesting than commanding armies. My group played domain stuff early on, but by the time AD&D came out most of my players had pretty much lost interest in that stuff and I haven't had a group since with significant interest. That's been my experience. I never reached those levels, so I can’t comment from direct experience. But I can see that when one is used to a style of play which involves life-or-death struggles and adventures in wilderness and dungeons, among other places, “sitting at home and building a castle” has about as much appeal as oatmeal dumped on a juicy steak. Which isn’t to say that’s what Dominion play is actually like… just that the rules are a bit complex and come across that way on first glance. A player is more likely to ask “How does my fighter have any adventures if they’ve got to stay home and defend the peasants?” than cheer at the prospect. Plus, it’s a lot of rules. But I think one thing it was intended to do was to find a way to reduce PCs’ adventuring hordes in a significant and meaningful manner, especially as Classic D&D doesn’t have a charge for training at new levels. In some ways it’s “enforced spending rules,” brought about by the absurd economics of D&D— and a game mechanic that requires treasure to produce the XP needed to level up, while there’s very little purpose for that same physical treasure at the amounts the game distributes. Once you’ve bought that shiny suit of Field Plate Armor and clad a Warhorse in Plate Barding, what do you do with all that gold? Companion answer— “Spend it on a castle! And servants! And armies!” |
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Jun 21, 2021 12:18:08 GMT -6
How about introducing specialist wizards into Moldvay/Cook? In Dragon #17 (Aug. '78), Jim Ward wrote an article, "Wizard with a Difference". The types were:
Wizard of Aggression
Wizard of Defense
Wizard of Tenaciousness
Wizard of Detection
Wizard of Fire (Pyrologist, anyone?)
Wizard of Movement
Wizard of All Things Rustic
and Wizard of Control
*the Editor prefaced Wizards with a Difference as being suitable for npc use only, but Ward clearly also had playable magic-users in mind. Each wizard has a spell list up to 8th level and up to a dozen unique spells. Schools of Magic wouldn't be a thing until the 2nd ed. Players Handbook. Why not get a head start on specialists? I think this strikes the right balance for inclusion in a Companion set. It's bigger than cantrips, but not as jarring as spell points.
|
|
