AD&D PH p.11, Wisdom Table II, extra spells for clerics
riprock....@gmail.com
I used to have an acquaintance who claimed that magic-users were
similarly supposed to get extra spells for high intelligence scores. I
don't know if this was his personal house rule, something he picked out
of Dragon magazine, or something in the core books. I initially argued
against it but eventually accepted it for his campaign.
At any rate, I believe that it is an official rule in 3.0 and 3.5: high
intelligence gives wizards extra spells just as high wisdom gives
clerics extra spells.
http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/basics.html
seems to show that wizards get extra spells for high intelligence.
So did this start in 3.0, or was it supposed to be official in AD&D?
Like my last question on "Rate of Fire," I suspect my haziness on the
AD&D rules stems more from my failure to communicate with fellow
players than from the inherent qualities of the rules.
Erik Trulsson
> Wisdom Table II shows extra spells for clerics with high wisdom.
>
> I used to have an acquaintance who claimed that magic-users were
> similarly supposed to get extra spells for high intelligence scores. I
> don't know if this was his personal house rule, something he picked out
> of Dragon magazine, or something in the core books. I initially argued
> against it but eventually accepted it for his campaign.
I am a bit uncertain about 2nd edition, but I don't think it was part of
the core rules there. It definitely was not part of 1st ed.
Back then only clerics (and druids?) got bonus spells from high stat scores.
It was a fairly common house rule to extend this to magic-users as well though.
>
> At any rate, I believe that it is an official rule in 3.0 and 3.5: high
> intelligence gives wizards extra spells just as high wisdom gives
> clerics extra spells.
Yes, and sorcerers get bonus spells from high charisma.
In 3.0/3.5 all spellcasters can get bonus spells from a high score in
intelligence/wisdom/charisma (which one depends on the class.)
>
> http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/basics.html
> seems to show that wizards get extra spells for high intelligence.
>
> So did this start in 3.0, or was it supposed to be official in AD&D?
I think did not become official until 3.0, but it may have appeared in one
of the (many) expansion books for 2nd Ed, and was probably fairly common
as a house rule even earlier.
>
> Like my last question on "Rate of Fire," I suspect my haziness on the
> AD&D rules stems more from my failure to communicate with fellow
> players than from the inherent qualities of the rules.
>
--
<Insert your favourite quote here.>
Erik Trulsson
ertr...@student.uu.se
Presto
news:447d...@news.midgard.homeip.net...
I don't have my 2ePHB in front of me, but I believe what an exzceptional Int
did for the wizard was to decrease the chance for either spell failure or
increase the chance of successfully learning a spell.
--
Presto,
- "There are more calls made on Mother's Day
than any other day of the year. Or as the NSA
calls it, 'our busy season'.
- Bill Maher
David Trimboli
news:1149069509.3...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I used to have an acquaintance who claimed that magic-users were
> similarly supposed to get extra spells for high intelligence scores.
> I
> don't know if this was his personal house rule, something he picked
> out
> of Dragon magazine, or something in the core books. I initially
> argued
> against it but eventually accepted it for his campaign.
There is no such rule in AD&D, first or second edition. It is a common
house rule for people who like symmetry in game rules.
David
Stardate 6413.6
David Trimboli
news:447d...@news.midgard.homeip.net...
> riprock....@gmail.com wrote:
> scores.
Yes, druids got the bonus as well, according to "The Official Errata:
Scads of Additions & Revisions for AD&D" in Dragon #35.
Gary Gygax himself seems to be confused on the issue: he's recently
declared it both ways:
(Unless he's making a distinction between the official rules and his
house rules.)
David
Stardate 6413.6
bgr...@zianet.com
It was also a good way to make up for the fact that by the rules low
level Magic-users in AD&D1 majorly sucked (and only slightly less so in
AD&D2).
David Trimboli
news:1149250102....@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> It was also a good way to make up for the fact that by the rules low
> level Magic-users in AD&D1 majorly sucked (and only slightly less so
> in
> AD&D2).
Yadda yadda.
David
Stardate 6419.0
Jasin Zujovic
> > It was also a good way to make up for the fact that by the rules low
> > level Magic-users in AD&D1 majorly sucked (and only slightly less so
> > in
> > AD&D2).
>
> Yadda yadda.
What a delightfully insightful and well-reasoned argument!
--
Jasin Zujovic
Tetsubo
You can always count on USENET to provide the height if intelligent
discourse...
--
Tetsubo
My page: http://home.comcast.net/~tetsubo/
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <)
/_|_\
David Trimboli
news:MPG.1eea8b4ea...@news.iskon.hr...
About as insightful and well-reasoned as I found "low level
Magic-users in AD&D1 majorly sucked" to be. I felt I should reply in
kind.
What, you want a rebuttal? Okay: magic-users in the original D&D were
overpowered, and reducing their dominance was a specific design goal
of AD&D. This is alluded to in the Introduction to the Players
Handbook, and has been stated by Gygax in Web forums.
David
Stardate 6419.7
Nikolas Landauer
> Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> > In article <7WWfg.845$xz4...@fe09.lga>, da...@trimboli.name says...
> >
> >> > It was also a good way to make up for the fact that by the
> >> > rules low level Magic-users in AD&D1 majorly sucked
> >> > (and only slightly less so in AD&D2).
> >>
> >> Yadda yadda.
> >
> > What a delightfully insightful and well-reasoned argument!
>
> About as insightful and well-reasoned as I found "low level
> Magic-users in AD&D1 majorly sucked" to be. I felt I should
> reply in kind.
One makes a statement. The other is utterly empty of all utility. You
didn't reply in kind.
> What, you want a rebuttal? Okay: magic-users in the original
> D&D were overpowered, and reducing their dominance was a
> specific design goal of AD&D. This is alluded to in the
> Introduction to the Players Handbook, and has been stated
> by Gygax in Web forums.
And Gygax fucked up in this attempt in AD&D1, and that was only
slightly fixed in AD&D2, resulting in low-level magic-users in AD&D1
majorly sucking, and low-level magic-users in AD&D2 sucking only
slightly less.
Hint: he didn't reduce the power of high-level magic-users at all,
leaving them ridiculously overpowered; instead, he made them worthless
at levels 1-4, and not much good after firing off their level 3 spells
at 5-6. Once they start rocketing ahead of everyone in levels from 7-9
(at around the same time their spells are coming to dominate the game),
magic-users become the uncontested dominators of the game for the rest
of the game.
While Jasin didn't support the original comment the way I just did, the
comment was no less accurate. I think he didn't support it, because he
expected the vast majority of those reading it knew exactly what he
meant.
--
Nik
Nikolas Landauer
>
> While Jasin didn't support the original comment the way I just
> did, the comment was no less accurate. I think he didn't
> support it, because he expected the vast majority of those
> reading it knew exactly what he meant.
Correction: The original, accurate, comment about AD&D1 and AD&D2
magic-users sucking was from Grubb, of all people. I leave my guess as
to the reasoning.
One other note, David. This:
> What, you want a rebuttal? Okay: magic-users in the original
> D&D were overpowered, and reducing their dominance was a
> specific design goal of AD&D. This is alluded to in the
> Introduction to the Players Handbook, and has been stated
> by Gygax in Web forums.
... is not a rebuttal. What magic-users were in the original D&D has
no bearing on whether or not low-level magic-users in AD&D1 and AD&D2
majorly sucked or not. In fact, it being a design goal alluded to and
stated by Gygax, doesn't even say whether or not it was accomplished
(most people feel it wasn't).
--
Nik
tussock
<EGG>
> Hint: he didn't reduce the power of high-level magic-users at all,
> leaving them ridiculously overpowered; instead, he made them worthless
> at levels 1-4, and not much good after firing off their level 3 spells
> at 5-6. Once they start rocketing ahead of everyone in levels from 7-9
> (at around the same time their spells are coming to dominate the game),
> magic-users become the uncontested dominators of the game for the rest
> of the game.
That was the idea, that one was only allowed to be the most
powerful character for a small part of the game; demi-humans for a start
and human mages at the end, where it was assumed few would play the game
out past 10th level. It was quite intentional that spellcasters
eventually dominated the universe, that being the standard fantasy trope.
None of it made for a great game, but that was the plan.
OTOH, 1st level Wizards still kicked ass in ADnD, with /Sleep/
being a totally dominant spell in every final encounter (unless the
final encounter turned out to be Zombies or Elves). OK, it was up to the
rest of the party to drag the otherwise useless WMD all the way there,
but that was part of the fun too, and there was always scrolls and wands
to use lying around the modules.
--
tussock
Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
congealed
> OTOH, 1st level Wizards still kicked ass in ADnD, with /Sleep/
> being a totally dominant spell in every final encounter (unless the
> final encounter turned out to be Zombies or Elves). OK, it was up to the
> rest of the party to drag the otherwise useless WMD all the way there,
> but that was part of the fun too, and there was always scrolls and wands
> to use lying around the modules.
i agree almost entirely ... but i don't know about the mage being
draagged along, sure they constantly need protecting but in my
experience the mage was often the most experienced player and as such
gave sage advice to the party; as one might expect from a dabbler in
the arts. Furthermore well thought out use of cantrips is always
useful against the stupider opponents encountered in the lower levels.
cop...@yahoo.com
Cantrips weren't part of AD&D 1e until Unearthed Arcana in ... 1985?
Brandon
David Trimboli
news:1149322879....@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> i agree almost entirely ... but i don't know about the mage being
> draagged along, sure they constantly need protecting but in my
> experience the mage was often the most experienced player and as
> such
> gave sage advice to the party; as one might expect from a dabbler in
> the arts.
Quite right. The game is (supposed to be) about things besides
fighting monsters: negotiating with them, solving puzzles, avoiding
traps. The point is to challenge the players, not the characters.
Fights are just one kind of challenge. Anybody who looks at a first
level magic-user and thinks he's only got one spell before he's
useless is missing the point.
David
Stardate 6421.9
Christopher Adams
>
> Quite right. The game is (supposed to be) about things besides
> fighting monsters: negotiating with them, solving puzzles, avoiding
> traps. The point is to challenge the players, not the characters.
"Challenge" is only the name of the game if you play like Gygax. There's a lot
more to roleplaying games than friendly competition between players and the GM.
Which is not to say that I disagree with your specific point about magic-users.
--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
-------
The question is whether it's pathological for a dropped egg to fall.
-------
Nothing says gritty fantasy like a whacky leprechaun knifing you in the junk.
-------
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatelist.html
David Trimboli
> "Challenge" is only the name of the game if you play like Gygax.
> There's a lot more to roleplaying games than friendly competition
> between players and the GM.
When I run D&D, I play it like Gygax. When I play other games, I play
them in the style they were intended. There's little point in playing,
say, The Lord of the Rings RPG, like a D&D game, and vice-versa.
D&D, being the most popular, get stretched out of shape the most. This
is why people always complained about getting XP for treasure, for
instance-it only makes sense when you're playing the game a certain
way.
If there isn't a game that exactly covers a style I'm looking for, I
go to the generic systems and build it myself.
David
Stardate 6423.4
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
> OTOH, 1st level Wizards still kicked ass in ADnD, with /Sleep/
>being a totally dominant spell in every final encounter (unless the
>final encounter turned out to be Zombies or Elves). OK, it was up to the
>rest of the party to drag the otherwise useless WMD all the way there,
>but that was part of the fun too, and there was always scrolls and wands
>to use lying around the modules.
Assuming you actually had the _Sleep_ spell, of course. IIRC it was
possible for your (randomly rolled) 'offensive' spell to be _Light_.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
David Trimboli
> Assuming you actually had the _Sleep_ spell, of course. IIRC it was
> possible for your (randomly rolled) 'offensive' spell to be _Light_.
I believe the Light spell is the only 1st level magic-user spell with
multiple applications. Given that one of them is offensive (cast it on
a creature to blind it), that's not a bad deal.
It's the Push spell that's a lousy 1st level offensive spell.
David
Stardate 6424.7
Rupert Boleyn
<da...@trimboli.name> wrote:
>I believe the Light spell is the only 1st level magic-user spell with
>multiple applications. Given that one of them is offensive (cast it on
>a creature to blind it), that's not a bad deal.
But as your only offensive spell Light sucks.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
Justin Alexander
> What, you want a rebuttal? Okay: magic-users in the original D&D were
> overpowered, and reducing their dominance was a specific design goal
> of AD&D. This is alluded to in the Introduction to the Players
> Handbook, and has been stated by Gygax in Web forums.
Quote: "Still, magic users are powerful indeed, and they have many new
spells."
This is a very odd way of saying that you're "reducing their
dominance".
However, that aside, Gygax's penance method of "balancing" the magic
user is well known. Making them suck at low levels in the belief that
this will somehow balance their complete and utter dominance at high
levels was always an... odd choice. Particularly given the fact that
the rate of advancement meant that many campaigns would never reach
those high levels. And those campaigns which did would be forever-after
dominated by the magic users. Neither scenario seems particularly
appealing.
--
Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net
David Trimboli
> On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:16:11 -0400, "David Trimboli"
> <da...@trimboli.name> wrote:
>
>>I believe the Light spell is the only 1st level magic-user spell
>>with
>>multiple applications. Given that one of them is offensive (cast it
>>on
>>a creature to blind it), that's not a bad deal.
>
> But as your only offensive spell Light sucks.
At least you've still got your razor-sharp wit!
David
Stardate 6428.4
David Trimboli
news:1149542396.7...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> David Trimboli wrote:
>> What, you want a rebuttal? Okay: magic-users in the original D&D
>> were
>> overpowered, and reducing their dominance was a specific design
>> goal
>> of AD&D. This is alluded to in the Introduction to the Players
>> Handbook, and has been stated by Gygax in Web forums.
>
> Quote: "Still, magic users are powerful indeed, and they have many
> new
> spells."
>
> This is a very odd way of saying that you're "reducing their
> dominance".
It's not odd at all when you consider that you've taken the statement
completely out of its context.
Clerics and fighters have been strengthened in relation to
magic-users, although not overly so. Clerics have more and
improved spell capability. Fighters are more effective in
combat and have other new advantages as well. Still,
magic-users are powerful indeed, and they have many new
spells. None of these overshadow thieves.
So yes, the passage says that clerics and fighters have gotten
stronger, but magic-users haven't (though they have gotten more
spells). The passage is also written to explain about this shift in
balance without making it look like magic-users have gotten short
shrift.
The other classes did indeed get more powerful in the transition from
D&D to AD&D. Fighters went from d8 to d10 hit dice, clerics went from
d6 to d8, and thieves went from d4 to d6. Magic-users stayed at d4.
Ability score adjustments give bigger bonuses to all classes but
magic-users, for all but the worst examples of a class: more bonuses
for fighters for strength, bonus spells for clerics for wisdom (the
origin of this thread), and bonus adjustments to thief scores for
dexterity. A magic-user, however, does not get a bonus from high
intelligence, he avoids a penalty. Even monsters got stronger, going
from d6 to d8 hit dice.
Thus, the designers did find the D&D magic-user too powerful, and
tried to square things up in AD&D.
> However, that aside, Gygax's penance method of "balancing" the magic
> user is well known. Making them suck at low levels in the belief
> that
> this will somehow balance their complete and utter dominance at high
> levels was always an... odd choice. Particularly given the fact that
> the rate of advancement meant that many campaigns would never reach
> those high levels. And those campaigns which did would be
> forever-after
> dominated by the magic users. Neither scenario seems particularly
> appealing.
Play style today is usually quite different from play style in the
'70s. Back then the game was more of a "game," and less of a "let's
pretend" session. Most low-level characters were expected to die
quickly, whatever their class. One might have several characters of
different power levels, in different places throughout the campaign.
"High level" was name-level, the point at which a character went from
heroic status to legendary status. High-level characters tended to
adventure alone or in small groups of like-powered characters.
Early games also tended to have a lot of magic items lying around in
dungeons which only magic-users could use.
And because it was a game to challenge players, and not an adventure
simulator, playing a character involved much more than just what
abilities he had. It involved clever thinking, and knowing when not to
fight. The low-level magic-user was supposed to be physically
protected by the fighters, not so he could cast a spell later, but so
that the character could continue on the adventure with the rest of
them.
Finally, let us not forget that despite the alleged suckiness of
magic-users, many people loved to play them, including Gygax himself.
David
Stardate 6428.4
Jim Davies
With Enlarge and Friends coming a close 2nd.
Enlarge is very vaguely worded, but it affects only the target and not
his gear, so armour breaks. Which would be fine for stripping an enemy
tank of his plate mail, but the range is then touch (DMG). Depending
on the GM, it's crap or brokenly good.
Friends increases your dump stat by too little to matter for not long
enough. Or it makes things worse.
A 1MU could end up with Push, Affect Normal Fires* and Erase. With
spells like that, you memorise Read Magic and hope for scrolls.
* has anyone ever found a use for this spell??
--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
John Phillips
"Jim Davies" wrote
>
> A 1MU could end up with Push, Affect Normal Fires* and Erase. With
> spells like that, you memorise Read Magic and hope for scrolls.
>
> * has anyone ever found a use for this spell??
It's great for when you and your dwarves get captured by goblins and brought
to their king.
John
Rupert Boleyn
<da...@trimboli.name> wrote:
>And because it was a game to challenge players, and not an adventure
>simulator, playing a character involved much more than just what
>abilities he had. It involved clever thinking, and knowing when not to
>fight. The low-level magic-user was supposed to be physically
>protected by the fighters, not so he could cast a spell later, but so
>that the character could continue on the adventure with the rest of
>them.
As a friend of mine used to say "magic users are an investment in the
future".
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
ari...@cox.net
>
<snip>
>
> A 1MU could end up with Push, Affect Normal Fires* and Erase. With
> spells like that, you memorise Read Magic and hope for scrolls.
>
> * has anyone ever found a use for this spell??
Increasing a fire's light output could act as a distraction, much like
casting a Light or Dancing Lights spell.
Decreasing a fire's size and light would be useful if you wanted to
make an area darker quickly (e.g. to aid your thief's Hide in Shadows
attempt or to escape notice) without having to take the time to douse
the fire. It could also reduce the amount of damage a fire does if you
have to move into or through it but can't extinguish it for some
reason.
Arivne
ari...@cox.net
<grin> Actually, the spell that Gandalf used was Pyrotechnics if it was
anything.
The Hobbit p. 72:
"Just at that moment all the lights in the cavern went out, and the
great fire went off poof! into a tower of blue glowing smoke, right up
to the roof, that scattered piercing white sparks all among the
goblins."
1E Pyrotechnics spell:
"It produces a flashing and fiery burst of glowing, colored aerial
fireworks...or it causes a thick writhing stream of smoke to arise from
the fire source of the spell..."
Arivne
David Trimboli
>
> As a friend of mine used to say "magic users are an investment in
> the
> future".
Perfect!
David
Stardate 6429.9
Justin Alexander
David Trimboli wrote:
> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote in message
> news:1149542396.7...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > user is well known. Making them suck at low levels in the belief that
> > this will somehow balance their complete and utter dominance at high
> > levels was always an... odd choice. Particularly given the fact that
> > the rate of advancement meant that many campaigns would never reach
> > those high levels. And those campaigns which did would be
> > forever-after dominated by the magic users. Neither scenario seems
> > particularly appealing.
>
> Play style today is usually quite different from play style in the
> '70s. Back then the game was more of a "game," and less of a "let's
> pretend" session. Most low-level characters were expected to die
> quickly, whatever their class. One might have several characters of
> different power levels, in different places throughout the campaign.
> "High level" was name-level, the point at which a character went from
> heroic status to legendary status. High-level characters tended to
> adventure alone or in small groups of like-powered characters.
Q: What does any of that have to do with magic users sucking at low
levels and being uber-powerful at high levels?
A: Absolutely nothing.
Q: Then why did you say it?
> Early games also tended to have a lot of magic items lying around in
> dungeons which only magic-users could use.
And they never had magic swords for the fighters to use?
> And because it was a game to challenge players, and not an adventure
> simulator, playing a character involved much more than just what
> abilities he had. It involved clever thinking, and knowing when not to
> fight.
Once again, this has absolutely nothing to do with magic users sucking
at low levels. Saying "the game is about more than rules" is always the
last refuge of someone too fucking stupid to design a decent set of
rules.
> The low-level magic-user was supposed to be physically
> protected by the fighters, not so he could cast a spell later, but so
> that the character could continue on the adventure with the rest of
> them.
Ah. So Gygax carefully designed things so that the fighters would have
to protect a worthless member of the party in the low levels so that,
at higher levels, they would be completely outclassed by that character
forever after.
Brilliant!
... Hmm. No, wait. That's not brilliant at all.
> Finally, let us not forget that despite the alleged suckiness of
> magic-users, many people loved to play them, including Gygax himself.
You're accusing Gygax of being incapable of long-term thinking? Wow,
that's kinda harsh.
No 33 Secretary
>
> David Trimboli wrote:
>> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote in message
>> news:1149542396.7...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > However, that aside, Gygax's penance method of "balancing" the magic
>> > user is well known. Making them suck at low levels in the belief that
>> > this will somehow balance their complete and utter dominance at high
>> > levels was always an... odd choice. Particularly given the fact that
>> > the rate of advancement meant that many campaigns would never reach
>> > those high levels. And those campaigns which did would be
>> > forever-after dominated by the magic users. Neither scenario seems
>> > particularly appealing.
>>
>> Play style today is usually quite different from play style in the
>> '70s. Back then the game was more of a "game," and less of a "let's
>> pretend" session. Most low-level characters were expected to die
>> quickly, whatever their class. One might have several characters of
>> different power levels, in different places throughout the campaign.
>> "High level" was name-level, the point at which a character went from
>> heroic status to legendary status. High-level characters tended to
>> adventure alone or in small groups of like-powered characters.
>
> Q: What does any of that have to do with magic users sucking at low
> levels and being uber-powerful at high levels?
> A: Absolutely nothing.
>
> Q: Then why did you say it?
Because he's more interesting than you?
>
>> Early games also tended to have a lot of magic items lying around in
>> dungeons which only magic-users could use.
>
> And they never had magic swords for the fighters to use?
Magic swords were generally nowhere near as powerful as mage-specific
items.
>
>> And because it was a game to challenge players, and not an adventure
>> simulator, playing a character involved much more than just what
>> abilities he had. It involved clever thinking, and knowing when not to
>> fight.
>
> Once again, this has absolutely nothing to do with magic users sucking
> at low levels. Saying "the game is about more than rules" is always the
> last refuge of someone too fucking stupid to design a decent set of
> rules.
Can't argue with that. Gygax always did impress me as not the brightest
bulb on the tree.
>
>> The low-level magic-user was supposed to be physically
>> protected by the fighters, not so he could cast a spell later, but so
>> that the character could continue on the adventure with the rest of
>> them.
>
> Ah. So Gygax carefully designed things so that the fighters would have
> to protect a worthless member of the party in the low levels so that,
> at higher levels, they would be completely outclassed by that character
> forever after.
Which, of course, isn't what he said. But then, you're no smarter than
Gygax. No more interesting, either.
>
> Brilliant!
>
> ... Hmm. No, wait. That's not brilliant at all.
Indeed. You're pretending David said something other than what he actually
said, while quoting what he actually *did* say, was very stupid.
>
>> Finally, let us not forget that despite the alleged suckiness of
>> magic-users, many people loved to play them, including Gygax himself.
>
> You're accusing Gygax of being incapable of long-term thinking? Wow,
> that's kinda harsh.
>
Not has harsh as the limited mental tool set your parents saddled you with.
Guess they rolled a "3" on IQ when then rolled you up.
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
Jim Davies
>Jim Davies wrote:
>>
>> has anyone ever found a use for [Affect Normal Fires]?
>
>Increasing a fire's light output could act as a distraction, much like
>casting a Light or Dancing Lights spell.
So cast Light or Dancing Lights.
>Decreasing a fire's size and light would be useful if you wanted to
>make an area darker quickly (e.g. to aid your thief's Hide in Shadows
>attempt or to escape notice) without having to take the time to douse
>the fire. It could also reduce the amount of damage a fire does if you
>have to move into or through it but can't extinguish it for some
>reason.
It lasts only 1 round per level and doesn't alter the heat output. And
it doesn't affect anything bigger than a 3' bonfire which you could
probably jump over anyway for about 1d4 damage.
And the range is 5 feet per level, so (considering the MU has no
stealth, no armour, no hit points and a loud voice) it's not going to
distract anyone who isn't already alerted by his casting the spell.
It would be an OK (though still very marginal) spell if it weren't so
limited in so many ways. I get the feeling that anyone who used it in
their campaigns must have houseruled it, if only inadvertently.
In 3e it would be a poor cantrip;
Jim Davies
inscribed:
>Magic swords were generally nowhere near as powerful as mage-specific
>items.
True, if you stock your dungeon with +1 shortswords and Staves of the
Magi. Not so if stocked with Flame Blade vs scroll of Mirror Image x
3.
Given a clueless DM, any stupid result is possible.
ari...@cox.net
Jim Davies wrote:
> On the grave of ari...@cox.net is inscribed:
>> Jim Davies wrote:
>
>>> has anyone ever found a use for [Affect Normal Fires]?
>
>
>> Decreasing a fire's size and light <snip> could also reduce the
>> amount of damage a fire does if you have to move into or
>> through it but can't extinguish it for some reason.
>
> It lasts only 1 round per level and doesn't alter the heat output.
If a 3 foot wide fire is reduced to the size of a match (as stated in
the spell description), it should be possible to squeeze by on either
side without touching it and taking the damage for doing so.
> And it doesn't affect anything bigger than a 3' bonfire which
> you could probably jump over anyway for about 1d4 damage.
>
<snip>
You're assuming that there is enough room overhead to jump over the
fire, which is not necessarily the case, especially if the area is so
constricted that you have to go through the fire at all. Also, the
idea to avoid all damage, not just some of it.
The classic example where Affect Normal Fires would be useful would be
getting past a fire in a fireplace.
Arivne
David Trimboli
If it isn't all about power, then they don't suck. And since
name-level characters tended to adventure alone or in small groups,
there was no concern about dominating other characters anyway.
Sorry, I thought you could comprehend that.
>> Early games also tended to have a lot of magic items lying around
>> in
>> dungeons which only magic-users could use.
>
> And they never had magic swords for the fighters to use?
A scroll with three spells on it has just made a low-level magic-user
a lot more versatile than a low-level fighter with a magic sword.
You seem to think only in terms of combat strength. Perhaps that is
the source of your belligerence.
>> And because it was a game to challenge players, and not an
>> adventure
>> simulator, playing a character involved much more than just what
>> abilities he had. It involved clever thinking, and knowing when not
>> to
>> fight.
>
> Once again, this has absolutely nothing to do with magic users
> sucking
> at low levels. Saying "the game is about more than rules" is always
> the
> last refuge of someone too fucking stupid to design a decent set of
> rules.
Not at all. The d20 philosophy of A Rule For Everything is not
accepted by gamers everywhere. As the rulebooks mention many times,
the rules provide a framework for the game: they help the referee
adjudicate common situations. A game that challenges the players (not
necessarily the characters), yet has rules for everything, will be
unimaginative at best.
>> The low-level magic-user was supposed to be physically
>> protected by the fighters, not so he could cast a spell later, but
>> so
>> that the character could continue on the adventure with the rest of
>> them.
>
> Ah. So Gygax carefully designed things so that the fighters would
> have
> to protect a worthless member of the party in the low levels so
> that,
> at higher levels, they would be completely outclassed by that
> character
> forever after.
>
> Brilliant!
>
> ... Hmm. No, wait. That's not brilliant at all.
It was a response like this that prompted me to say "Yadda yadda"
earlier.
Your hyperbole, sir, knows no bounds.
>> Finally, let us not forget that despite the alleged suckiness of
>> magic-users, many people loved to play them, including Gygax
>> himself.
>
> You're accusing Gygax of being incapable of long-term thinking? Wow,
> that's kinda harsh.
Silly boy. Go play in the sandbox. Go on, shoo!
David
Stardate 6432.5
cop...@yahoo.com
> On the grave of No 33 Secretary <terry.nota...@gmail.com> is
> inscribed:
>
> >Magic swords were generally nowhere near as powerful as mage-specific
> >items.
>
> True, if you stock your dungeon with +1 shortswords and Staves of the
> Magi. Not so if stocked with Flame Blade vs scroll of Mirror Image x
> 3.
How about a Rod of Lordly Might vs a Staff of the Magi? Or a +1
shortsword vs a scroll with Mirror Image x3?
Brandon
No 33 Secretary
news:dn6c829congdiu9sg...@4ax.com:
> On the grave of No 33 Secretary <terry.nota...@gmail.com> is
> inscribed:
>
>>Magic swords were generally nowhere near as powerful as mage-specific
>>items.
>
> True, if you stock your dungeon with +1 shortswords and Staves of the
> Magi. Not so if stocked with Flame Blade vs scroll of Mirror Image x
> 3.
Did you ever play with the original little digest sized books? At higher
levels, it quickly degenerated in to characters being little more than hard
points on which to mount magic items, virtually all of which duplicated
high level mage spells.
>
> Given a clueless DM, any stupid result is possible.
>
Indeed.
No 33 Secretary
news:1149686392....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
How about a +1 sword that acts _as_ as Staff of the Magic, usable by
fighters only?
Justisaur
Jim Davies wrote:
> On the grave of ari...@cox.net is inscribed:
>
> >Jim Davies wrote:
> >>
> >> has anyone ever found a use for [Affect Normal Fires]?
> >
> >Increasing a fire's light output could act as a distraction, much like
> >casting a Light or Dancing Lights spell.
>
> So cast Light or Dancing Lights.
>
I had totally forgotten that 1e gave wizards random spells. Y'know I
think 3e could do with a dose of that. Maybe instead of random spells
known, it could be random spells prepared every day.
Make the wizards and clerics actually think. I think that was one
reason I liked wizards in 1e, you had to actually think with them to be
successful. Just how do you use your 'lame' light spell to any effect,
etc.
Still on the subject of relative power, I do think 3e is much better at
making low level casters useful, and high level ones not so totally
overpowering, although they could do a lot more to aleviate that. I
swear the high level fighters in 2e were more useful, I remember
multiple instances of the fighters wiping out enemies before the
casters had a chance to do anything. My last high level campain mostly
consisted of the casters killing everything and the fighter types
running around trying to find something to kill before the casters did
so.
- Justisaur
cop...@yahoo.com
No 33 Secretary wrote:
> "cop...@yahoo.com" <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:1149686392....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Jim Davies wrote:
> >> On the grave of No 33 Secretary <terry.nota...@gmail.com> is
> >> inscribed:
> >>
> >> >Magic swords were generally nowhere near as powerful as mage-specific
> >> >items.
> >>
> >> True, if you stock your dungeon with +1 shortswords and Staves of the
> >> Magi. Not so if stocked with Flame Blade vs scroll of Mirror Image x
> >> 3.
> >
> > How about a Rod of Lordly Might vs a Staff of the Magi? Or a +1
> > shortsword vs a scroll with Mirror Image x3?
> >
> How about a +1 sword that acts _as_ as Staff of the Magic, usable by
> fighters only?
Would be nice ;)
Brandon
No 33 Secretary
news:1149701219.8...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
I've seen less plausible combinations. A favorite magic item in the good
old days was something that gave one "the abilities of a magic-user of x
level." Not at all uncommon, for larger values of x.
Justin Alexander
> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> blathered:
> > Q: What does any of that have to do with magic users sucking at low
> > levels and being uber-powerful at high levels?
>
> If it isn't all about power, then they don't suck. And since
> name-level characters tended to adventure alone or in small groups,
> there was no concern about dominating other characters anyway.
If you're not adventuring with any other PCs then balance issues with
other PCs are completely irrelevant.
Your thesis here, unfortunately, only highlights the stupidity of
Gygax's design. According to you, magic users suck whenever they're
supposed to be adventuring with others; but this is somehow "balanced"
by the fact that they kick ass at higher levels... when they won't be
adventuring with others. This is like saying that a football team with
5 members can be fielded fairly against a team with 11 members because,
AFTER THE GAME IS OVER, they'll be given 17 members.
Plus, geez, football is as much about strategy and thinking as it is
about the number of people on the field!
> >> Early games also tended to have a lot of magic items lying around
> >> in dungeons which only magic-users could use.
> >
> > And they never had magic swords for the fighters to use?
>
> A scroll with three spells on it has just made a low-level magic-user
> a lot more versatile than a low-level fighter with a magic sword.
>
> You seem to think only in terms of combat strength. Perhaps that is
> the source of your belligerence.
And you seem to think that the only two classes in the game are
fighters and magic users. That's probably not the source of your
defense of a stupid, poorly-balanced set of mechanics. But it's
interesting to note.
> > Once again, this has absolutely nothing to do with magic users sucking
> > at low levels. Saying "the game is about more than rules" is always
> > the last refuge of someone too fucking stupid to design a decent
> > set of rules.
>
> Not at all. The d20 philosophy of A Rule For Everything is not
> accepted by gamers everywhere. As the rulebooks mention many times,
> the rules provide a framework for the game: they help the referee
> adjudicate common situations. A game that challenges the players (not
> necessarily the characters), yet has rules for everything, will be
> unimaginative at best.
Unfortunately I'm not a judge for the Most Moronic Non Sequitur Ever
Posted contest, so I can't accept your very worthy submission.
Hint: Rulebooks having "a rule for everything" is, yet again,
completely irrelevant to the issue of magic users sucking at low levels
and being uber-powered at high levels.
> >> Finally, let us not forget that despite the alleged suckiness of
> >> magic-users, many people loved to play them, including Gygax
> >> himself.
> >
> > You're accusing Gygax of being incapable of long-term thinking? Wow,
> > that's kinda harsh.
>
> Silly boy. Go play in the sandbox. Go on, shoo!
... says the guy who claimed that Gygax was incapable of long-term
thinking, but was probably too stupid to realize that's what he said.
Justin Alexander
> > Q: What does any of that have to do with magic users sucking at low
> > levels and being uber-powerful at high levels?
> > A: Absolutely nothing.
> >
> > Q: Then why did you say it?
>
> Because he's more interesting than you?
Wow, Terry, aren't you tired of getting you ass whupped by me on a
regular basis in your moronic troll games?
I mean, it's not like you can win. Either you're going to post again,
proving me right and thus ceding me the victory according to my rules.
Or you're not going to post, thus giving me the last word and thus
ceding me the victory according to your rules.
Sucks to be you.
No 33 Secretary
> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote in
>> news:1149636242....@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>> > Q: What does any of that have to do with magic users sucking at low
>> > levels and being uber-powerful at high levels?
>> > A: Absolutely nothing.
>> >
>> > Q: Then why did you say it?
>>
>> Because he's more interesting than you?
>
> Wow, Terry, aren't you tired of getting you ass whupped by me on a
> regular basis in your moronic troll games?
'Bout as tired as you are of my semen dribbling down your chin, son.
>
> I mean, it's not like you can win.
You play. Therefore, I win.
You *did* repsond, after all.
>Either you're going to post again,
> proving me right and thus ceding me the victory according to my rules.
I know you are, but what am I?
(I fired the first shot. Therefore, *I* win, by definition, with all
replies. As you - and everyone else - knows).
> Or you're not going to post, thus giving me the last word and thus
> ceding me the victory according to your rules.
>
> Sucks to be you.
>
I know you are, but what am I?
Now wipe your chin, son. You're leaving stains on your good shirt.
David Trimboli
> [drivel]
*shrug* You believe what you like. Go ahead and get the last word,
too; I don't see the benefit.
David
Stardate 6433.8
Jim Davies
inscribed:
>Did you ever play with the original little digest sized books? At higher
>levels, it quickly degenerated in to characters being little more than hard
>points on which to mount magic items, virtually all of which duplicated
>high level mage spells.
Fraid not. Started with a combination of Blue Book and DMG in 81. Mind
you, the first campaign I ran was so stupid that one of the PCs
decided he's get one of each Miscellaneous Magic Item. We got into an
argument about whether he'd paid for an Apparatus of Kwalish (he had
so much money it wasn't obvious).
No 33 Secretary
> On the grave of No 33 Secretary <terry.nota...@gmail.com> is
> inscribed:
>
>>Did you ever play with the original little digest sized books? At
>>higher levels, it quickly degenerated in to characters being little
>>more than hard points on which to mount magic items, virtually all of
>>which duplicated high level mage spells.
>
> Fraid not. Started with a combination of Blue Book and DMG in 81.
It was starting to change even then. Because it was too obvious to miss
that the original game had some . . . balance problems. As discussed here.
Justin Alexander
> >Either you're going to post again,
> > proving me right and thus ceding me the victory according to my rules.
>
> I know you are, but what am I?
Thanks for the concession, Terry.
Justin Alexander
David Trimboli wrote:
> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
>
> > [drivel]
>
> *shrug* You believe what you like. Go ahead and get the last word,
> too; I don't see the benefit.
Translation: "I am unable to respond to your points in a logical or
coherent fashion. Rather than admit my egregious errors, I shall simply
behave like a 5 year old boy and stick my tongue out."
Sad, really. Better luck next time, David.
No 33 Secretary
>
> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote in
>> news:1149715483....@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>> >Either you're going to post again,
>> > proving me right and thus ceding me the victory according to my rules.
>>
>> I know you are, but what am I?
>
> Thanks for the concession, Terry.
>
Thanks for the blowjob, Justin. You haven't lost your touch. And you
finally got that chipped tooth fixed.
(And you *did* answer, and you know it was because you couldn't stop
yourself. And you'll answer this, too, because you're my bitch, and I'm not
done with you yet.)
No 33 Secretary
> I am unable to respond to your points in a logical or
> coherent fashion. Rather than admit my egregious errors, I shall simply
> behave like a 5 year old boy and stick my tongue out.
>
Good of you to finally admit it.
sc...@clear.net.nz
No 33 Secretary wrote:
> "Justin Alexander" wrote:
>
> > I am unable to respond to your points in a logical or
> > coherent fashion. Rather than admit my egregious errors, I shall simply
> > behave like a 5 year old boy and stick my tongue out.
> >
> Good of you to finally admit it.
*Too easy*.
--
tussock
sc...@clear.net.nz
> I had totally forgotten that 1e gave wizards random spells.
Yep.
> Y'know I think 3e could do with a dose of that. Maybe instead of
> random spells known, it could be random spells prepared every day.
Cat's dead, son. Leave it alone.
> Make the wizards and clerics actually think. I think that was one
> reason I liked wizards in 1e, you had to actually think with them to be
> successful. Just how do you use your 'lame' light spell to any effect,
> etc.
I got /real/ sick of DMing that kind of play. It was good
occasionally, but most of it wasn't at all. That may be just me, but I
just don't see the joy in having to adjudicate _everything_ one of the
players does.
> Still on the subject of relative power, I do think 3e is much better at
> making low level casters useful, and high level ones not so totally
> overpowering, although they could do a lot more to aleviate that.
It's tricky. They want Wizards to be able to throw around scary
bang bangs, and still have the ultimate in versatility. They've
gradually weakened the bangs so Ftr and Brb stack up much better in raw
damage terms, but the grunts still have very limited versatility. Plus,
the monsters are the best at melee, but not at spells.
I think combat's all over a bit too quickly, putting too much
demand on first strikes, and limiting the effectiveness of melee.
> I swear the high level fighters in 2e were more useful, I remember
> multiple instances of the fighters wiping out enemies before the
> casters had a chance to do anything.
The Complete Fighter splat meant they could kill everything several
times over each round, and again with the other hand. Giants had like
40 hp, if they were lucky.
> My last high level campain mostly consisted of the casters killing
> everything and the fighter types running around trying to find
> something to kill before the casters did so.
Casters can use their spells to get the grunts into the act in a
controlled fashion, but it's not the easiest trick, and often quicker
and safer to just blast away anyhoo.
The game progresses too fast too, but that's a marketing thing to
get the old characters out of the way and a new splatbook on the table
for the next lot of fresh meat. I can't see WotC giving us back a
progression speed that gives room to develop a character in play, or
grunts to work out what gear they need to stay in play before the
casters gain another set of toys.
Still fun, just got an itch that says there's room for improvement.
--
tussock
Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
Rupert Boleyn
> It's tricky. They want Wizards to be able to throw around scary
>bang bangs, and still have the ultimate in versatility. They've
>gradually weakened the bangs so Ftr and Brb stack up much better in raw
>damage terms, but the grunts still have very limited versatility. Plus,
>the monsters are the best at melee, but not at spells.
> I think combat's all over a bit too quickly, putting too much
>demand on first strikes, and limiting the effectiveness of melee.
That's probably my biggest gripe with D&D. First strike has always
been where the most punch was, but in previous editions you usually
had more time to recover, whereas in 3.x if you get smacked in round
1, the chances are you're screwed.
> The Complete Fighter splat meant they could kill everything several
>times over each round, and again with the other hand. Giants had like
>40 hp, if they were lucky.
That's more an AD&D1 thing. In AD&D2 even hill giants with 12HD +
1-2HP, or 43-44HP. They went up from there, and IIRC a fire giant had
about 70HP. Complete Fighter warrior types were still over powered
though, especially if theGM didn't say 'NO!' when presented with the
text that said that 'warriors' could specialise, and not 'fighters'.
IIRC it didn't say 'single classed' either. Enter the two-weapon
fighting ranger/cleric with style specialisation, weapon spec, and a
pair of longswords.
> Casters can use their spells to get the grunts into the act in a
>controlled fashion, but it's not the easiest trick, and often quicker
>and safer to just blast away anyhoo.
I've been finding that if the GM is 'generous' with the golems
spellcasting loses a lot of its shine and fighters become very much in
demand. Hard on the rogues, though.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
No 33 Secretary
news:1149845512.3...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Indeed. It's always easy with Justin.
Justin Alexander
> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote in
> news:1149788950....@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > No 33 Secretary wrote:
> >> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote in
> >> news:1149715483....@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> >> >Either you're going to post again,
> >> > proving me right and thus ceding me the victory
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for the concession, Terry.
> >
> Thanks
Wow. You lose again. Sad, Terry. Very sad.
No 33 Secretary
Resorting to outright lies through editing? Another blowjob from Justin.
You must just *love* the taste of my dick, son. But then, we already knew
that.
You *will* reply now, because you *can't* stop yourself. Plus, you don't
want to.
Justin Alexander
No 33 Secretary wrote:
> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote in
> news:1150475720....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > No 33 Secretary wrote:
> >> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote in
> >> news:1149788950....@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > No 33 Secretary wrote:
> >> >> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote in
> >> >> news:1149715483....@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> >> >> >Either you're going to post again,
> >> >> > proving me right and thus ceding me the victory
> >> >>
> >> >> I know you are, but what am I?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for the concession, Terry.
> >> >
> >> Thanks
> >
> > Wow. You lose again. Sad, Terry. Very sad.
> >
> Resorting
Wow. You lose again. Sad, Terry. Very sad.
--
Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net
Terry Austin
Still wiping my semen from your chin, eh? But then, you've admitted you
love the taste.
--
Terry Austin
Justin Alexander
Terry Austin wrote:
> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote in
> news:1150501964.3...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > No 33 Secretary wrote:
> >> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote in
> >> news:1150475720....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >> > No 33 Secretary wrote:
> >> >> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote in
> >> >> news:1149788950....@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No 33 Secretary wrote:
> >> >> >> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote in
> >> >> >> news:1149715483....@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> >> >> >> >Either you're going to post again,
> >> >> >> > proving me right and thus ceding me the victory
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I know you are, but what am I?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks for the concession, Terry.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Thanks
> >> >
> >> > Wow. You lose again. Sad, Terry. Very sad.
> >> >
> >> Resorting
> >
> > Wow. You lose again. Sad, Terry. Very sad.
> >
> Still
Wow. You lose again. Sad, Terry. Very sad.
--
Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net
Terry Austin
BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK!
BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK!
BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK! BARK!
You're leaving stains on my pantleg again, perv.
--
Terry Austin
Justin Alexander
Wow. You lose again. Sad, little puppy. Very sad.
Terry Austin
--
Terry Austin