Mages
Mike
I have been playing AD&D for about 2 years now and in all of this time
I haven't seen any reason for any person to play a mage. My group uses
all of the Players Option books but even then a mage is no match for a
cleric or a fighter. If the mage had some fighting ability then it
would be good but they have to rely on magic and even then they have to
learn all of the spells that they want to use. I would rather be a
cleric and fight and memorize any spell I want and use the PO:S&P and
S&M and take wizardly priest and cast any wizard spell that I want of
any one school.
- Just my two cents
Scorpio
You obviously haven't played a high level campaign yet! Believe me, if
you can find a way for the mage to survive through lower levels, Mages
start getting really nasty around 11th level (even sooner if you use
your spells imaginatively).
Don't underestimate mages, they make great characters (in the long run).
--
Scorpio
(remove .spamkill from address to reply directly)
Do or Do Not! There is no Try!
- Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back.
Mr. Tines
###
On Tue, 22 Jul 1997 16:20:49 GMT, in <EDqAs...@nonexistent.com>
Mike <zan...@geocities.com> wrote.....
> I have been playing AD&D for about 2 years now and in all of this time
> I haven't seen any reason for any person to play a mage. My group uses
> all of the Players Option books but even then a mage is no match for a
> cleric or a fighter. If the mage had some fighting ability then it
You need to wait a few levels, and then you notice what the benefit
of a mage is.
> would be good but they have to rely on magic and even then they have to
> learn all of the spells that they want to use. I would rather be a
Gosh! what a surprise! Whatever else would a mage do?
> cleric and fight and memorize any spell I want and use the PO:S&P and
> S&M and take wizardly priest and cast any wizard spell that I want of
> any one school.
This is IMHO just one of the bugs in the PO series - the cleric is
massively overpowered for the price anyway, without the ability to trade
a few less used spheres for power like that.
-- PGP fingerprint: BC 01 55 27 B4 93 7C 9B 3C 54 D1 B7 24 8C 08 BC --
_______ {pegwit v8 public key =581cbf05be9899262ab4bb6a0847069c10bcfbca89}
/_ __(_)__ ___ ___ {4a5bf8d208d001b829d4d0} (encrypted mail perferred)
/ / / / _ \/ -_|_-< PGP key at http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/1394
/_/ /_/_//_/\__/___/@windsong.demon.co.uk (or mr_tines at geocities.com)
### end pegwit v8 signed text
e9a5d3c5738b5e51d51fe06e51c5baf47dafcfcb875529748e2ec23f325b
e7432cf270feaf9a36a626ceb321b1d65b32f0880850b54ea5679eddca2c
A. W. Jackson
Mike <zan...@geocities.com> wrote in article
<EDqAs...@nonexistent.com>...
> I have been playing AD&D for about 2 years now and in all of this time
> I haven't seen any reason for any person to play a mage. My group uses
> all of the Players Option books but even then a mage is no match for a
> cleric or a fighter. If the mage had some fighting ability then it
> would be good but they have to rely on magic and even then they have to
> learn all of the spells that they want to use.
What's wrong with "having to rely on magic"? A 1st level mage with Sleep
can wipe out any other 1st level character, or indeed, 4th level character!
With Charm Person or Friends he doesn't have to fight them at all. What
1st level cleric spell can compare with these?
At 5th level, a Mage can annihilate a roomfull of people with a Fireball,
render a much more powerful character practically helpless with Slow (no
saving throw, remember?), or make himself practically invulnerable with
Wraithform. A 5th level cleric...gee, let's see, can cure disease.
Don't compare mages and clerics by equating their spell capabilities. Mage
spells and cleric spells are very different in scope and purpose.
> I would rather be a
> cleric and fight and memorize any spell I want and use the PO:S&P and
> S&M and take wizardly priest and cast any wizard spell that I want of
> any one school.
Hmm, wizardly priest. This is up there in my book with Bladesinging and
Two-Weapon Style-plus-Ambidexterity for one of the most unbalancing
things invented by TSR. If your group uses this travesty of an "option",
all bets are off. Sorry.
>
> - Just my two cents
>
- Just mine
--A.W.Jackson--
rjac...@pathcom.com
Nathan Burgoine
Even at low-levels, Mages can be quite useful. Personally, I love
'Cantrip.' The wizard can *truly* make a difference at a social function,
or with information gathering, and other significant troubles...
Cantrip can light small fires, blow dust off of things that might be
trapped and so forth...
Elite Ball - Wizard uses cantrip to make flowers freshen, wine taste
better, and cause little glowing sparklies to dance around (s)he and dance
partner while on the floor. Within the hour, before it is about to go,
Wizard presents a rose to date (or something) which turns into a dove and
flies out the window... Can we say 'impressed'? At the very least, it
makes for a grand entrance.
Information Gathering - Children see all. Impress them by making their
toys play by themselves or by conjuring up something funny, or maybe earn
their like by making the pretty girl find a big spider in her dress (if
talking to boys) or use a 'clean and fresh-smelling' cantrip on a boy (if
talking to girls) and truly embarrass him. Either way, impressing a kid
is easy enough, and they'll certainly keep their eyes/ears open if it
means you'll do more tricks for them.
Another neat Divination cantrip - Hold a closed book up on its spine,
cantrip it, and let it fall open to the page last read by Mr X. That can
come in handy if he was 'reading something important' but snapped the book
shut. That kind of thing.
The othe 1st level spells are just as versatile. Mount gives you a horse.
They can deal quite the damage. Tell it to kick the orc. Or, if you're
in the mood for some money, *sell it*. Then get out of town, fast.
Metamorphose liquids has to be the single, largest moneymaker alive. Make
a small barrel of wiriting ink. That stuff goes for a mint! Clothing
dyes, perfumes, wines, etc. Just don't flood the market...
And, the old stand-by combat spells for when things get rough are fairly
good. Sleep, Magic Missile, and so forth. Just find yourself a party
willing to understand that you're useless once the spell goes off. I
prefer to use cantrip to do things in battle - speed up one of the PCs
attacks by 1 (an init bonus of -1), or if combat hasn't started yet, and
someone is kind enough to wear shoes or boots with laces... 'untie' and
then 'knot.' Cantrip-roll a flask of oil to the centre of a room,
Cantrip-stop it, and then Cantrip-tug the cap off. If people still
haven't noticed, it's time for the Cantrip-spark.
I could go on and on... I won't...
'nathan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Nathan Burgoine (nbur...@chat.carleton.ca) *
http://chat.carleton.ca/~nburgoin "Na siv flenza heki."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Kaufman
On Tue, 22 Jul 1997 16:20:49 GMT, Mike <zan...@geocities.com> wrote:
>I have been playing AD&D for about 2 years now and in all of this time
>I haven't seen any reason for any person to play a mage. My group uses
>all of the Players Option books but even then a mage is no match for a
>cleric or a fighter. If the mage had some fighting ability then it
>would be good but they have to rely on magic and even then they have to
>learn all of the spells that they want to use. I would rather be a
>cleric and fight and memorize any spell I want and use the PO:S&P and
>S&M and take wizardly priest and cast any wizard spell that I want of
>any one school.
I usually end up playing clerics over mages. However, I enjoy playing
a mage. It is a challenge. They are tough to keep alive at low
levels, but once you get to a decent level, mages are scary. Can you
imagine what a mage can do at higher levels? Just look at fireball.
They can take out massive amounts of people with a third level spell.
I think based on the discussion in here, most people think a mage can
kick the butt of any fighter.
Although I will say, I see your argument. I am not sure playing a
mage is that much better than playing a cleric who can cast from one
wizard school. I played in a game recently where the cleric chose
alteration. He didn't seem to balance it off very well. (In other
words, he seemed pretty powerful being able to cast a fair amount of
his clerical spells and Alteration spells). I found it to be
especially a problem considering that his "god" supposedly was giving
him the alteration spells, while the mages still had to find their
spells. So in that context, I will say skills and powers does make
playing a cleric more appealing.
Joshua Kaufman
On 23 Jul 1997 10:41:55 GMT, maxp...@ix.netcom.com(Bill Mullen)
wrote:
>In <5r41a5$a...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> nbur...@chat.carleton.ca
>(Nathan Burgoine) writes:
>>
>>Even at low-levels, Mages can be quite useful. Personally, I love
>>'Cantrip.'
>
> Me too <jumping around waving hand excitedly>! Cantrip is my
>favorite spell, the one I ALWAYS memorize (except maybe at first
>level).
Personally, I don't think a wizard should be required to cast a
cantrip spell before being able to use cantrips. But then again, I
don't think it is worth it for the wizard to cast the cantrip spell to
do cantrips. That's why I try and give wizards the ability to do a
certain amount of cantrips (based on level), so they can use that
first level spell for something more productive, if they feel the urge
to do cantrips.
> Unearthed Arcana has a great list of cantrips. Anyone know where I
>can find some more?
I think the great net spellbook has a list of cantrips. Try that.
>>And, the old stand-by combat spells for when things get rough are
>fairly
>>good. Sleep, Magic Missile, and so forth. Just find yourself a party
>>willing to understand that you're useless once the spell goes off. I
>>prefer to use cantrip to do things in battle - speed up one of the PCs
>>attacks by 1 (an init bonus of -1),
>
> Again, perhaps beyond the power of a Cantrip, IMO.
I would agree with you there.
> The best thing about Cantrip is that once you start remembering
>that you've cast it (it lasts an hour/level!), you are ALWAYS seeing
>situations where you can use it.
I suppose cantrips have their use. And if you are high enough level,
you can practically use cantrips all the time. So in that sense, the
spell isn't bad. But it also depends on the type of game you are in.
If your settings are towns, then cantrips work great. If your
settings are in the forest or other places, cantrips aren't as
effective. Cantrips are great for role-playing. However I am not
sure how good they are in a non-role-playing setting. And when I say
non-role-playing, I don't necessarily mean hack and slash either. I
am not sure how well a cantrip will do when you are exploring a
dungeon, for instance.
Bill Mullen
In <5r41a5$a...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> nbur...@chat.carleton.ca
(Nathan Burgoine) writes:
>
>Even at low-levels, Mages can be quite useful. Personally, I love
>'Cantrip.'
Me too <jumping around waving hand excitedly>! Cantrip is my
favorite spell, the one I ALWAYS memorize (except maybe at first
level).
The wizard can *truly* make a difference at a social function,
>or with information gathering, and other significant troubles...
More than that, Cantrip allows your mage to be the "man". It
literally MAKES the mage, allows him to do all the cool stuff a Mage
should be able to do. Once you're in the middle levels, there's no
excuse for not casting it every morning (kind of like make-up).
Face it, sometimes you're trying to go incognito, but a lot of the
time... hey, you're a mage. You want to flaunt it. No one wants to
pick a bar fight with a dude who's eyes are spitting fire with
lightning sparking around his body. Your robes should ALWAYS be
spotless, and for a dash of panache, you can go for the "billowing
cloak" option (which also looks pretty cool).
And hey, who the heck wants to go through life drinking warm beer
and having to slice the fat off your steak with your fingers? Having
to smell other peoples farts and the shit in the street? Unable to
make tea regularly or properly spice your stew?
Screw that. Mages are above that. Cantrip is what makes them that
way.
>
>Cantrip can light small fires, blow dust off of things that might be
>trapped and so forth...
Unearthed Arcana has a great list of cantrips. Anyone know where I
can find some more? Fun trick--creating bees to fly a little ahead of
you when you're adventuring. They'll disappear if you are about to run
into a dead-magic zone, and you can either watch them or listen for the
buzzing (for sake of convenience).
>Another neat Divination cantrip - Hold a closed book up on its spine,
>cantrip it, and let it fall open to the page last read by Mr X. That
can
>come in handy if he was 'reading something important' but snapped the
book
>shut. That kind of thing.
Hmm... that might be beyond the power of a Cantrip, IMO.
>And, the old stand-by combat spells for when things get rough are
fairly
>good. Sleep, Magic Missile, and so forth. Just find yourself a party
>willing to understand that you're useless once the spell goes off. I
>prefer to use cantrip to do things in battle - speed up one of the PCs
>attacks by 1 (an init bonus of -1),
Again, perhaps beyond the power of a Cantrip, IMO.
or if combat hasn't started yet, and
>someone is kind enough to wear shoes or boots with laces... 'untie'
and
>then 'knot.' Cantrip-roll a flask of oil to the centre of a room,
>Cantrip-stop it, and then Cantrip-tug the cap off. If people still
>haven't noticed, it's time for the Cantrip-spark.
Cantrip actually makes throwing oil pretty easy--no fumbling with a
torch, and it's a lot faster (I'd rule you could throw oil and use a
pre-cast Cantrip to light it all in the same round).
>I could go on and on... I won't...
More, more! How about the "instant disguise kit"? Grow that
crewcut down to your back, change your hair/eye/skin color, and add a
spiffy goatee! Or if you're hugging a cliff hoping those Frost Giants
don't see you, you can always turn yourself snow white (or pure black,
or whatever...). How about insect repellent when attacked by an Insect
Swarm (or just walking through the swamp)? Sending a hatpin over to
prick that guard in the butt or the eye (go in from the side ;)), then
making a noise at the other end of the hall from you?
The best thing about Cantrip is that once you start remembering
that you've cast it (it lasts an hour/level!), you are ALWAYS seeing
situations where you can use it.
Peace :)
Bill
maxpot46
Lawrence R. Mead
Mike (zan...@geocities.com) wrote:
: I have been playing AD&D for about 2 years now and in all of this time
: I haven't seen any reason for any person to play a mage. My group uses
: all of the Players Option books but even then a mage is no match for a
: cleric or a fighter. If the mage had some fighting ability then it
This has got to be a troll; no one really thinks this do they?
DMGorgon
--
Lawrence R. Mead (lrm...@whale.st.usm.edu)
ESCHEW OBFUSCATION ! ESPOUSE ELUCIDATION !
http://www-dept.usm.edu/~scitech/phy/mead.html
Michael J. Tedin
> >(Nathan Burgoine) writes:
> >>
> >>Even at low-levels, Mages can be quite useful. Personally, I love
> >>'Cantrip.'
> >
> > Me too <jumping around waving hand excitedly>! Cantrip is my
> >favorite spell, the one I ALWAYS memorize (except maybe at first
> >level).
>
> cantrip spell before being able to use cantrips. But then again, I
> don't think it is worth it for the wizard to cast the cantrip spell to
> do cantrips. That's why I try and give wizards the ability to do a
> certain amount of cantrips (based on level), so they can use that
> first level spell for something more productive, if they feel the urge
> to do cantrips.
>
I have a house rule that one cantrip effect is worth one quarter of a
spell point. I use the rule that each spell level is worth that number
of spell points. Multiply that times the number of spells and you get
the number of spell points. Example: (warning IDHMPHBIFM) A mage gets 2
first level spells and 1 second level. This is 2x1 = 2, 1x2 = 2.
Therefore, the mage gets 4 spell points.
In the case of cantrips, he can cast 16 cantrips. There is no duration,
so he can't stuff a bunch of different effects into the spell. He can
cast mount, or spark, or etc.
Dominic Nguyen (aka The WeReCHiCKeN)
Michael J. Tedin wrote:
>
> Lawrence R. Mead wrote:
> >
<snip>
> > This has got to be a troll; no one really thinks this do they?
> >
>
Mostly about Cantrips ;)
-----
Cantrips!!! CANTRIPS CAN (and do) SAVE THE WORLD!!!
-me, during any magical discussion.
Michael J. Tedin
Lawrence R. Mead wrote:
>
> Mike (zan...@geocities.com) wrote:
> : I have been playing AD&D for about 2 years now and in all of this time
> : I haven't seen any reason for any person to play a mage. My group uses
> : all of the Players Option books but even then a mage is no match for a
> : cleric or a fighter. If the mage had some fighting ability then it
>
Nathan Burgoine
> >>Sleep, Magic Missile, and so forth. Just find yourself a party
> >>willing to understand that you're useless once the spell goes off. I
> >>prefer to use cantrip to do things in battle - speed up one of the PCs
> >>attacks by 1 (an init bonus of -1),
> >
> > Again, perhaps beyond the power of a Cantrip, IMO.
> I would agree with you there.
That comes from Dragon Magazine. Can't remember the issue, but
there's a great article on surviving as a low-level wizard. That
particular cantrip was listed as "quickblade" (affects one persons single
weapon, and only speed factor reduced by 1). I dunno - The AD&D people
came up with it, not me. Some of the examples they listed suggessted that
'this use of the cantrip causes the cantrip to end immediately upon the
ending of this effect.' But I don't think that was one of them...
> > The best thing about Cantrip is that once you start remembering
> >that you've cast it (it lasts an hour/level!), you are ALWAYS seeing
> >situations where you can use it.
> I suppose cantrips have their use. And if you are high enough level,
> you can practically use cantrips all the time. So in that sense, the
> spell isn't bad. But it also depends on the type of game you are in.
> If your settings are towns, then cantrips work great. If your
> settings are in the forest or other places, cantrips aren't as
> effective. Cantrips are great for role-playing. However I am not
> sure how good they are in a non-role-playing setting. And when I say
> non-role-playing, I don't necessarily mean hack and slash either. I
> am not sure how well a cantrip will do when you are exploring a
> dungeon, for instance.
Cantrip the smoke from your torch to always go away from you.
Cantrip dust off those 'spooky runes' that might blow up if they're the
ones you think they are. Monsters coming? Cantrip some soft,
shuffling, noises behind them and then call to your "allies" to attack.
On a side note, I don't think Cantrip can turn you white or change your
appearance - Think Change Self / Alter Self. And Camoflague is a bit
beyond it. I allow Cantrip to give a +5% or so to MS and HS, and that's
about it.. but basically, the 'white mage against a snowy hill' would be a
sort of 1st-level version of Invisibility (Camoflague) -=> sounds too strong.
As for the open a book to the last page viewed, if you hold a book right,
you can do that *without* using magic. I imagine cantrip could handle that...
And again, how often is it going to come up?
I have *some* cantrips listed on my homepage:
http://chat.carleton.ca/~nburgoin, many from the Unearthed Arcana, but
there's also 100 spells made for my campaign in there too, playtested and
balanced. It's been a long 6 years... ;)
It's under "World of Deiji"
Erik Ward
In article <5r4n5j$j...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, maxp...@ix.netcom.co
says...
<snipped>
>
> More than that, Cantrip allows your mage to be the "man". It
>literally MAKES the mage, allows him to do all the cool stuff a Mage
>should be able to do. Once you're in the middle levels, there's no
>excuse for not casting it every morning (kind of like make-up).
> Face it, sometimes you're trying to go incognito, but a lot of the
>time... hey, you're a mage. You want to flaunt it. No one wants to
>pick a bar fight with a dude who's eyes are spitting fire with
>lightning sparking around his body. Your robes should ALWAYS be
>spotless, and for a dash of panache, you can go for the "billowing
>cloak" option (which also looks pretty cool).
This, of course, assumes you actually want to ROLE play. Power gamers
won't care about this aspect. OTOH, my last mage was a mage because he
was the ultimate in lazy (he wanted to party all the time, with the
minimum amount of work to maintain funding -- he got tricked into thinking
magecraft and adventuring was EASY!) However, cantrip was his favorite
spell, since he could do a lot of little things easily.
> And hey, who the heck wants to go through life drinking warm beer
>and having to slice the fat off your steak with your fingers? Having
>to smell other peoples farts and the shit in the street? Unable to
>make tea regularly or properly spice your stew?
> Screw that. Mages are above that. Cantrip is what makes them that
>way.
>>
<snipped>
>>Another neat Divination cantrip - Hold a closed book up on its spine,
>>cantrip it, and let it fall open to the page last read by Mr X. That
>can
>>come in handy if he was 'reading something important' but snapped the
>book
>>shut. That kind of thing.
>
> Hmm... that might be beyond the power of a Cantrip, IMO.
>
Interesting. Can't decide if this is beyond cantrip or not myself. I
like the concept though.
>>And, the old stand-by combat spells for when things get rough are
>fairly
>>good. Sleep, Magic Missile, and so forth. Just find yourself a party
>>willing to understand that you're useless once the spell goes off. I
>>prefer to use cantrip to do things in battle - speed up one of the PCs
>>attacks by 1 (an init bonus of -1),
>
> Again, perhaps beyond the power of a Cantrip, IMO.
>
Actually, in one of the Dragon magazines before the hiatus, an article
about cantrips appeared. One of the cantrips listed was the above
cantrip (quickblade, I think it was called) -- increase one PCs attack
by 1. There was also a reverse (leadblade maybe) that slowed an opponent
by 1.
<snipped>
> Cantrip actually makes throwing oil pretty easy--no fumbling with a
>torch, and it's a lot faster (I'd rule you could throw oil and use a
>pre-cast Cantrip to light it all in the same round).
>
This is pretty standard in our campaigns. Used flame finger to scorch a
rot grub once too!
<snipped>
the Nightshade,
Erik Ward
Merlin
>I have been playing AD&D for about 2 years now and in all of this time
>I haven't seen any reason for any person to play a mage.
Look a little more closely...
At higher levels, NO character is more powerful than a mage. It is
because of this great potential that mages begin their careers
relatively weak. Yes, it IS a challenge for mages to survive to get
to those higher levels, but those that do are among the most
respected(and feared) of characters. So what if some priests can cast
a few mage spells? Even wizardly priests can't cast the most powerful
spells(8th and 9th level). And don't forget that mages can use more
magical items than any other class. Only mages can use the most
powerful of these items and only mages can create them. Also, priests
are subject to the whims of their gods and depend on them to grant
their spells. Mages on the other hand don't have to rely on the
beneficence of those 'higher powers'.
matthew dickinson
Mike wrote:
> I have been playing AD&D for about 2 years now and in all of this time
>
> I haven't seen any reason for any person to play a mage. My group
> uses
> all of the Players Option books but even then a mage is no match for a
>
> cleric or a fighter. If the mage had some fighting ability then it
> would be good but they have to rely on magic and even then they have
> to
> learn all of the spells that they want to use. I would rather be a
> cleric and fight and memorize any spell I want and use the PO:S&P and
> S&M and take wizardly priest and cast any wizard spell that I want of
> any one school.
>
> - Just my two cents
First, sheer role-playing opportunity. Who else is generally as
conceited as a mage?Second, precast spells, particularly at high level.
Short of a magic golem or an anti-magic shell you won't hurt my high
level mage (and I can deal with those).
Third, Wish and Limited Wish. These allow the mage access to any priest
spell.
Fourth, magic items.
Fifth, after ninth level a mage has no need to really fight in melee,
and when he must, it isn't generally so shabby as to result in his
death. At low levels, the mage is generally kicking almost as much butt
as anyone else (often my mage kills more than anyone else).
Sixth, a cleric can only get to seventh level mage spells (assuming
they're god granted, if they are run like additional mage spells, then
this doesn't bear out).
Granted, I take spells from more than PO and core books, but a mage can
always develope his own spells.
As a mage I want the ability to be almost invulnerable and be able to
cast any spell regaurdless of mage or clerical origin. Who cares if I
can't fight? Anyway, if I ever have to fight, that's what Tensor's
spells are for.
For what it's worth,
Maddog
Sebastien Poitras
Mike wrote:
>
> I have been playing AD&D for about 2 years now and in all of this time I haven't seen any reason for any person to play a mage. My group uses all of the Players Option books but even then a mage is no match for a cleric or a fighter. If the mage had some fighting ability then it
> would be good but they have to rely on magic and even then they have to learn all of the spells that they want to use. I would rather be a
> cleric and fight and memorize any spell I want and use the PO:S&P and S&M and take wizardly priest and cast any wizard spell that I want of any one school.
>
> - Just my two cents
I have a few opinions about this post.
1) Priests in skills and powers are ridiculous and should not be able
to specialize, backstab and cast wizard spells.
2) When you are a wizard, your god cannot refuse to give you a spell,
you can cast it for whatever reason you want.
3) At higher levels, mages kick the fighters' asses (for more info,
read the thread...)
4) It is really challenging to role play a mage, especially in a world
in which they are not held in high regard. You have to select your
spells carefully and use them carefully also.
5) Ever heard of role playing? I sometimes want to play something
else than the strongest possible character.
Sebastien Poitras
Brent Davis
> Mike (zan...@geocities.com) wrote:
> : I have been playing AD&D for about 2 years now and in all of this time
> : I haven't seen any reason for any person to play a mage. My group uses
> : all of the Players Option books but even then a mage is no match for a
> : cleric or a fighter. If the mage had some fighting ability then it
>
I've actually seen this attitude quite a bit in past gaming groups. For example,
in many campaigns I participated in during high school (both as player and DM),
it was common to start at 1st level and we were lucky to have characters reach
much higher than 5th-7th before the campaign ended (due to players leaving or
characters dying, etc.). Players quickly found that fighters and priests were
about the only ones surviving, plus they tended to participate in most of
the action (i.e. combat). Our DM's (me included I sadly admit) were quite
fond of insidious traps, curses, and so forth which tended to nail thieves
(picking the lock, scouting ahead), or the mages (cursed items that they try
to identify). I never tried to pick on the mages, but they just ended up
becoming easy targets: an arrow here, an ambush there, plus almost any area
affect spell. With such meager hit points, it doesn't take much to knock out
a low-level wizards.
In retrospect, the level of the campaign has a huge influence on players view
of mages. Once you get past the mid-level stages, mages start to become
formidable. The challenge is in getting them to that point.
--
Brent G. Davis
UserID: bdavis@rchland Internet: bgd...@vnet.ibm.com
Office: 040-2/C328 Phone:(507)253-0571 t/l:553-0571
CEC Verification Dept:463A IBM Rochester, Minnesota
Bill Mullen
In <5r5afj$d...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> nbur...@chat.carleton.ca
(Nathan Burgoine) writes:
>On a side note, I don't think Cantrip can turn you white or change
your
>appearance - Think Change Self / Alter Self.
Look at "Color" and "Hairy (?)" from Unearthed Arcana.
And Camoflague is a bit
>beyond it. I allow Cantrip to give a +5% or so to MS and HS, and
that's
>about it.. but basically, the 'white mage against a snowy hill' would
be a
>sort of 1st-level version of Invisibility (Camoflague) -=> sounds too
strong.
I would only give a slight chance of undetection, perhaps 5% +
2%/level, but you never know... It can't hurt.
Peace :)
Bill
maxpot46
Sea Wasp
Mike wrote:
>
> I have been playing AD&D for about 2 years now and in all of this time
> I haven't seen any reason for any person to play a mage.
1) Because you want to. That's the most important reason. Whether a
mage begins by being EFFECTIVE is irrelevant. That's a wargaming
consideration, not a roleplaying one.
2) Mages get to do Cool Stuff that other character classes don't,
ESPECIALLY as they gain levels. Sure, they can't kick butt up close and
personal like the others, but they can certainly do the thinking for the
party. Use those extra INT proficiencies, get yourself some serious
skills, and you'll find yourself useful. Engineering, spellcraft, etc.,
there are a LOT of skills that, cleverly used, can be very useful
whether or not you have some magic to sling around. If you feel it's
necessary to be wielding a sword, why, take that Militant Wizard option.
3) More Power Later. As time goes on, mages get more and more powerful
and flexible. I don't agree with some people that they're inarguably
MORE powerful than other classes -- properly played and equivalently
equipped, the other classes have their own advantages -- but there's no
arguing AT ALL that they're powerful. And at higher levels, you can't
even IMITATE their abilities without being a mage. Oh, maybe a "priest
of the god of magic" could, but that's rather like cheating; I doubt
that the god would give you the ability in the same way, simply because
that would be screwing over the real mages out there.
4) Properly played, mages Are Just Plain Cool. Cantrips (the old UA
kind) or the spell Cantrip (the second-ed first level spell) allow the
magician to do a whole huge RANGE of things that no other class can do,
that can be used to overawe and impress both adversaries and allies.
Playing a first-level mage, I once bluffed down an entire platoon of
orcs and trolls. They burst in on us and caught us from behind; I turned
slowly and with an expression of arrogant fury on my face, eyes glowing
and small sparks starting to surround my hands: "How DARE you intrude
upon us, maggots?" They blew morale rolls instantly. Remember: your
characters DO NOT HAVE LEVEL SIGNS OVER THEIR HEADS. You can't tell what
level this man you met in the street is; THEY can't tell whether you're
a first-level mage running a bluff, or a 19th level archmage about to
level them and the forest around them simply because he's in a Bad Mood
Today. And as someone else pointed out, comfort! No one else can clean
their clothes after a day's muddy hike with just a gesture; no one else
can make their field rations taste like Chicken Cordon Bleu; no one but
a mage can produce images and lights on demand, draw a rainbow in the
air, fill their hood with mysterious mist to give unease to any viewer,
etc., etc., etc. Mages are COOL.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Jeff
Scorpio wrote:
>
> You obviously haven't played a high level campaign yet! Believe me, if
> you can find a way for the mage to survive through lower levels, Mages
> start getting really nasty around 11th level (even sooner if you use
> your spells imaginatively).
>
Damn straight!
I was involved in a moderately high-level campaign (most characters
around 12 - 14th lvl). I was playing a half-giant gladiator from Athas
who had managed, through a fairly convoluted series of events, to wind
up in Faerun (Forgotten Realms). Anyway, the mage in the party was
named Mylzz the Multifaceted, and he's a nasty piece of work. While my
half-giant (specialized in boxing martial-arts style, 3 att/rnd punching
using +3 brass knuckles [custom made] with a Str. of 25 [natural of 22
plus wearing a ring of Enlargement]) could kick the hell out of just
about anything toe-to-toe, what could he do against the mage if he:
1. cast Fly (and flew around 20 - 30 feet off the ground;
2. had a Stoneskin active on himself
3. started dropping acid arrows, fireballs, etc.
Burn and die, maybe?
"Hey, somebody throw me a +4 giant flyswatter, OK?"
In combat, or even (maybe) constricted chaotic quarters, mages can be at
a disadvantage (but they have spells that can counter that, too), but a
mage's combat role is to stand at a distance and lob spells into
combat. A mage's non-combat role is to do just about anything else!
That my 2 cents (all purchases final, no refunds or transfers)
Best,
Jeff
Mr. Tines
###
On 23 Jul 1997 10:41:55 GMT, in <5r4n5j$j...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
maxp...@ix.netcom.com(Bill Mullen) wrote.....
> And hey, who the heck wants to go through life drinking warm beer
Anyone who appreciates what they're drinking.
The use of a cantrip would be to stop the beer turning sour.
-- PGP fingerprint: BC 01 55 27 B4 93 7C 9B 3C 54 D1 B7 24 8C 08 BC --
_______ {pegwit v8 public key =581cbf05be9899262ab4bb6a0847069c10bcfbca89}
/_ __(_)__ ___ ___ {4a5bf8d208d001b829d4d0} (encrypted mail perferred)
/ / / / _ \/ -_|_-< PGP key at http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/1394
/_/ /_/_//_/\__/___/@windsong.demon.co.uk (or mr_tines at geocities.com)
### end pegwit v8 signed text
77287d9fe3ef7a93284dc3d51ddbd8edc2db972dd3f34ee72f59bb628ca8
a6c7b0b3501432fe4aca5aafa752fb8f99c4368a49dbc21d3f9297ea1286
Vinicius Rodrigues de Moraes
Mike wrote:
>blablablabla...
> - Just my two cents
Hey, please tell me what that S&M, etc (the letters, man) are and I'll
give you a very good answer; I've beenplaying with mages -ONLY mages,
wild- for 6 years.
I'll try to convince you, but I need to know what book are those,
before.
vini
--
Vinicius Rodrigues de Moraes - AD&D - Heavy Metal - Bach - AI
Mechatronics Student - University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
http://www.mcca.ep.usp.br
Hey, write me. Good day.
Vinicius Rodrigues de Moraes
Scorpio wrote:
>
>
> You obviously haven't played a high level campaign yet! Believe me, if
> you can find a way for the mage to survive through lower levels, Mages
> start getting really nasty around 11th level (even sooner if you use
> your spells imaginatively).
>
> Don't underestimate mages, they make great characters (in the long run).
Again: totally right: let's say, REALLY low level, only 2 casting level:
waht a hevay slab can do falling from 10 m above someone? That's
levitate, Mr.!
;-)
vini
> --
> Scorpio
> (remove .spamkill from address to reply directly)
>
> Do or Do Not! There is no Try!
> - Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back.
--
Vinicius Rodrigues de Moraes
Mr. Tines wrote:
>
> ###
>
> On Tue, 22 Jul 1997 16:20:49 GMT, in <EDqAs...@nonexistent.com>
> Mike <zan...@geocities.com> wrote.....
>
> of a mage is.
required: the infinite uses make it so cool: there's a spell, for
instance: polymorph liquids or something like that: they can be really
powerful if well-used.
> Gosh! what a surprise! Whatever else would a mage do?
hahaha: waht avout my outstanding 1d4-1???
> This is IMHO just one of the bugs in the PO series - the cleric is
> massively overpowered for the price anyway, without the ability to trade a few less used spheres for power like that.
this is for the DM: put hindrances, cut out some spheres, healing for
instance; BALANCE is the name of the game.
Please, tell me what Po and the others mean.
vini, Wild Mage (boom!).
>
> -- PGP fingerprint: BC 01 55 27 B4 93 7C 9B 3C 54 D1 B7 24 8C 08 BC --
> _______ {pegwit v8 public key =581cbf05be9899262ab4bb6a0847069c10bcfbca89}
> /_ __(_)__ ___ ___ {4a5bf8d208d001b829d4d0} (encrypted mail perferred)
> / / / / _ \/ -_|_-< PGP key at http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/1394
> /_/ /_/_//_/\__/___/@windsong.demon.co.uk (or mr_tines at geocities.com)
>
> ### end pegwit v8 signed text
> e9a5d3c5738b5e51d51fe06e51c5baf47dafcfcb875529748e2ec23f325b
> e7432cf270feaf9a36a626ceb321b1d65b32f0880850b54ea5679eddca2c
Dominic Nguyen (aka The WeReCHiCKeN)
Sea Wasp wrote:
<Some beautiful stuff on Cantrip and about roleplaying>
I must say this again, and again, and again-
CANTRIPS!!! Cantrips can (and do) save the world.
Cantrips are only limited by your imagination and by the limitations
stated in the spell description (ie no damage, no duplication of other
spells)
Just one question: does anyone here NOT like Cantrip? And if so, why?
Defend yourself, blasphemer. ;)
Ah well, I'm done.
-----
You can blame this post on the fact that I'm tired and somewhat out of
sorts, if you'd like.
Truls Rostrup
Mr. Tines (ti...@windsong.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: This is IMHO just one of the bugs in the PO series - the cleric is
: massively overpowered for the price anyway, without the ability to trade
: a few less used spheres for power like that.
This is where DMs and players have to apply that elusive quality known as 'common
sense'. A priest is a representative for a deity, and will reflect the god in the
spells and powers. The god would be very much into magic for having wiz spells as a
power. Anyway, that choice is the only one I consider banning, it can be too powerful
even with balancing justification
--
Travelling towards oblivion,
Truls Rostrup | ss...@alf.uib.no | http://www.uib.no/People/ssptr
"The weapon is an icon of the fact that civilisation is founded on the
possibility of murder or enslavement, of a bestiality more complex than
that of the beasts" - Thomas Pynchon
Mike
Merlin wrote:
>
> >I have been playing AD&D for about 2 years now and in all of this time
> >I haven't seen any reason for any person to play a mage.
>
>
> At higher levels, NO character is more powerful than a mage. It is
> because of this great potential that mages begin their careers
> relatively weak. Yes, it IS a challenge for mages to survive to get
> to those higher levels, but those that do are among the most
> respected(and feared) of characters. So what if some priests can cast
> a few mage spells? Even wizardly priests can't cast the most powerful
> spells(8th and 9th level). And don't forget that mages can use more
> magical items than any other class. Only mages can use the most
> powerful of these items and only mages can create them. Also, priests
> are subject to the whims of their gods and depend on them to grant
> their spells. Mages on the other hand don't have to rely on the
> beneficence of those 'higher powers'.
left without the material components? I will admit that there are many
useful spells that don't require material components but a lot of the
more powerful ones do. As for the spellbook, any self respecting high
level mage will have some kind of a backup spellbook but, sometimes he
may not be able to get to it.
KLINT
> > I have been playing AD&D for about 2 years now and in all of this time
> > I haven't seen any reason for any person to play a mage.
>
Well, I think that sums up the basic reason you play ANY class.
> 2) Mages get to do Cool Stuff that other character classes don't,
> ESPECIALLY as they gain levels.(Snip)
So do theives, clerics, druids (especially druids), fighters, et
cetera. Some of the stuff a 9th level fighter can do may not be as
flashy, but to the commoner, it's still pretty *neat*.
> 3) More Power Later. (Snip)
See the above comments.
> 4) Properly played, mages Are Just Plain Cool.
Arguably, dependent upon number one, so are the other classes. For a
long time I gamed with my brothers (we were in our teens). I enjoyed
playing a mage, my oldest brother (who is younger than me) loves to play
fighters - specifically p-dans; the next one really enjoys playing a
theif; the last one really liked clerics. It's just a personality
thing. You'd suspect with four of us, two of us would like to play the
same kinds of classes, but that's just not the case.
The group I currently game with has the following PC types:
1 - fighter/druid
1 - fighter/theif
1 - thief (er, handler)
2 - clerics
We have represented in this party two fighter classes, three clerics,
two theives and no mages. It's a pretty well run party.
(Snip great use of cantrip)
Jason M Hatter
Dominic Nguyen (aka The WeReCHiCKeN) (ngu...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: CANTRIPS!!! Cantrips can (and do) save the world.
Nope. That's steam. Cantrips just add some color 8)
--
Jason
http://www.cris.com/~towonder/
Sailor Moon Picture Archive http://www.delta.edu/~jmhatter/archive.html
Sea Wasp
Mike wrote:
> I also have to say, What happens when your mage has no spellbook or is
> left without the material components? I will admit that there are many
> useful spells that don't require material components but a lot of the
> more powerful ones do. As for the spellbook, any self respecting high
> level mage will have some kind of a backup spellbook but, sometimes he
> may not be able to get to it.
If you're really high level, contingencies relating to keeping/fetching
spellbooks are cool. And I've always appreciated the Spell Component
Case as an item. Get one if possible. I had lots of fun with it.
And this assumes your group adheres to all those rules strictly. I only
played in one group that used spell component rules with any regularity,
and most of them don't even get in a big fit about spellbooks; they
certainly aren't usually run as being gargantuan 3x3 tomes -- more like
a small pocket notebook.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Nathan Burgoine
"COnjure Spell Component."
God I love that spell...
Seriously, though, Material components are one of the great few
limitations of the Mage. Last game in point: If the group turned
themselves invisible, they had it made... oops. One piece of fleece left.
Well, next plan...
Vocalize has a great tendancy to unbalance the game with a Thief/Mage who
also has Invisibility. (Invisible, Move Silent, Vocalize and ZAP.) Of
course, those stupid bells...
'Nathan
Bill Mullen
In <33d725b9...@news.dx.net> jk...@mpb.com (Joshua Kaufman)
writes:
>On Thu, 24 Jul 1997 01:36:05 -0700, "Dominic Nguyen (aka The
>WeReCHiCKeN)" <ngu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Just one question: does anyone here NOT like Cantrip? And if so,
why?
>>Defend yourself, blasphemer. ;)
>>
>>Ah well, I'm done.
>
>Cantrip, because I think it is kinda stupid that you need to cast a
>first level spell to do little things. But again, that is just a
>personal view on cantrips. But I don't have anything against
>cantrips themselves. They make things interesting.
I think the 2nd edition version is a VAST improvement over the old
system of substituting 4 cantrips for a single 1st level spell. With
the 1 hour/level duration, you can cast Cantrip after Cantrip after
Cantrip...
Peace :)
Bill
maxpot46
Peter White
Brent Davis wrote:
>
> it was common to start at 1st level and we were lucky to have
> characters reach much higher than 5th-7th before the campaign ended
> (due to players leaving or characters dying, etc.). Players quickly
> --
My guess is this brutal style is quite of bit closer to the origins of
D&D than what most people play today. Not only to the classes balance
more reasonably but being multiclass is not nearly as attractive due to
the much greater mortality rates resulting from "lingering" at the very
low levels for twice as long. When I first played D&D, we shunned the
slower multiclass advancement exactly because we noticed only 20-25% of
the single-class characters ever reached 2nd level. It was not until I
jumped into an ongoing campaign with level 6/6 and better multis that I
saw how immensely poweful they were.
--Peter
p-w...@accesscom.com
Jonathan Nusholtz
In article <33D713...@ix.netcom.com>, ngu...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
>Sea Wasp wrote:
><Some beautiful stuff on Cantrip and about roleplaying>
>
>I must say this again, and again, and again-
>
>
>stated in the spell description (ie no damage, no duplication of other
>spells)
>
>Defend yourself, blasphemer. ;)
>
>Ah well, I'm done.
>
>You can blame this post on the fact that I'm tired and somewhat out of
>sorts, if you'd like.
Well, I don't like it as a spell. I know that it can do all kind of little
things, but why would a wizard memorize it instead of a killer like Magic
Missile, Color Spray, or Sleep? There are probably more 1st-level spells
than any other level, and wasting all those slots on something like
Cantrip doesn't seem like a good way to survive. Instead of a spell, I use
Cantrip as a proficiency (the idea was in a recent Dragon, I think #221)
that wizards, priests, and thieves can learn. They cast a number depending
on level, and wizards can eventually cast as many as they want per day.
That way even a 1st-level wizard can do cool "wizard stuff" and still use
Enlarge, Burning Hands, etc.
--
Jonathan Nusholtz
"From now on, I will not try to reason with the idiots I encounter. I will
dismiss them by waving my paw and saying 'bah'."
Joshua Kaufman
On Thu, 24 Jul 1997 01:36:05 -0700, "Dominic Nguyen (aka The
WeReCHiCKeN)" <ngu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Just one question: does anyone here NOT like Cantrip? And if so, why?
>Defend yourself, blasphemer. ;)
>
>Ah well, I'm done.
Cantrip the spell or just cantrips in general? I don't like the spell
barbara haddad
Mike <zan...@geocities.com> writes:
> I have been playing AD&D for about 2 years now and in all of this time
> all of the Players Option books but even then a mage is no match for a
> cleric or a fighter. If the mage had some fighting ability then it
> learn all of the spells that they want to use. I would rather be a
> cleric and fight and memorize any spell I want and use the PO:S&P and
> S&M and take wizardly priest and cast any wizard spell that I want of
> any one school.
Why play a mage? For the power that comes to those who manage to
survive, of course. I personally like rangers and priests much more than
mages -- but some of my players will play mages in preference to any
other class. Frequently, tragedy happens and the mage dies. Sometimes
though, he survives.
But I must say that it's the things some mages do to -themselves-
that provoke vast amounts of humor.
Case in point: Jacob. He's a mage (evoker specialist) that one of
my players is currently running. He managed to get up to 3rd level
without too many serious wounds ..... and then the fun began. He was out
in a violent thunder/lightning storm (while everyone else but the party's
dwarf was hiding in a cave) and he gets hit by lightning. (Natural
lightning - he made a ST and I rolled low on the 8d8. They find him and
drag him back to the cave; nursing him back to health.
....but Jacob now has 'brillo pad' hair that puffs out around his
head like a fuzzball.)
So Jacob goes (later) into comes caves with the group. They fight
ghouls in the main passage and he squishes himself into a smaller passage
on the side ..... then feels something tickling his backside. 'Agh
carrion crawlers' he manages, before collapsing, paralized, watching the
crawler begin to nibble on him a hp at a time. The rest of the group get
back to him and drag out most of his body. The group healer sews all the
parts back together (& gets a '1' on the NWP 'healing' skill -- so Jacob
doesn't lose either leg when a 'raise dead' is cast on him -- although he
DOES lose one arm).
So the 1-armed mage goes on and the week he gets to 5th level and
can finally cast 'ligtning bolt', he has it in his mind when the group
gets attacked by wights. One of the wights attacks Jacob, who loses a
life level in the -middle- of casting his 'lightning bolt'. (The
initiatives are THAT close) -- so more dice are rolled and the spell goes
off -- affecting Jacob _and_ the wight.) Jacob's player rolls GREAT for
the 5d6 lightning bolt damage AND fails Jacob's ST vs the spell.
Self-fried, he drops (cackling 'I'll kill myself before YOu get my
levels!')
The group returns the fried remains (which fit in a small sack)
back to Jacob's parents .... along with Jacob's magic items.
Jacob's folks, a well-off pair of horse raisers, contact Jacob's
mage-master, whome Jacob had given a tome a few months back ((gack -
forgot the tome that raises INT by +1 pt)). Well, Jacob's master knows
he owes the kid (going from 17 INT to 18 INT is a BIG jump for a mage) --
so he arranges for a ressurect on the kid. It takes most of Jacob's
items - and ALL of his cash, but by the end of the month, Jacob is ready
to go off with the group once again.
Jacob is currently again going into dangerous, undead haunted
terrain.....on the elusive search for magical knowledge, power .... and
will hopefully provide many a new story to reagle y'all with. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a thought from barbara haddad -> (bha...@LunaCity.com)
LunaCity BBS - Mountain View, CA - 415 968 8140
Yonman
Mike wrote:
> I also have to say, What happens when your mage has no
> spellbook or is
> left without the material components? I will admit that there are
> many
> useful spells that don't require material components but a lot of the
> more powerful ones do. As for the spellbook, any self respecting high
>
> level mage will have some kind of a backup spellbook but, sometimes he
>
> may not be able to get to it.
howdy !
now tell me, are you one of those dummies that ask marsial artists what
would they do if they were facing a man with a gun ?
c'mon ! give mages a chance, eh ?
besides, for those extreme emergancies, where there are no spells or
speel books, there is always the trusty scroll bag, holding ye'olde
assortment of spells for exactly this kind of tight spot.
kapish ?
don't ask what if's ... play them !
Yonman
da...@wehi.edu.au
> 1) Because you want to. That's the most important reason.
> 2) Mages get to do Cool Stuff that other character classes don't,
> 3) More Power Later.
> 4) Properly played, mages Are Just Plain Cool. Cantrips (the old UA
Couldn't agree more. It's just the sheer fun of it. Love the cantrip
story by the way.
> Remember: your
> characters DO NOT HAVE LEVEL SIGNS OVER THEIR HEADS.
Well, this is true of course, but sometimes there are little clues.
Take my old friend Aileron, later known as Aileron Nine-finger, then
Aileron Four-finger, then Aileron Ten-finger, then Aileron Eleven-finger.
He once avoided arrest because he no longer matched the description on the
wanted poster. And then there's the story of how my mage lost his eyebrows...
Unfortunately, our group of characters tends to stand out a bit after all
these years.
Ian Davis da...@wehi.edu.au
Joshua Kaufman
On 24 Jul 1997 19:27:03 GMT, nbur...@chat.carleton.ca (Nathan
Burgoine) wrote:
>"COnjure Spell Component."
>
It is only good if you are in a game where material components are a
factor. If they aren't, then it is kinda pointless. I still don't
like the spell much though, even if components are a factor.
>Vocalize has a great tendancy to unbalance the game with a Thief/Mage who
>also has Invisibility. (Invisible, Move Silent, Vocalize and ZAP.) Of
>course, those stupid bells...
Or try improved invisibility and you can keep on zapping. You don't
need to be a thief/mage to be effective though. Try fly or some spell
where you don't make any noise walking on the ground. Being a
thief/mage helps. Or try playing a cleric/mage and use silence
instead of move silently. That can be just as potent.
ChoiManTai
Just one quick question and I really don't mean it as a flame or anything
of the
kind. Does this tragic stuff happen to the party because they're (or just
Jacob) reckless? Or does it happen because it amuses you? Generally, I
always thought that you should give the players some slack, to make them
more heroic than they really are for the enjoyment of all. But that's of
course just my opinion.
Louis
choim...@aol.com
Brent Davis
> My guess is this brutal style is quite of bit closer to the origins of
> D&D than what most people play today.
A good guess, especially considering this was during the early to mid-80's and
it was entirely 1st edition. Most of the adventures tended to be VERY
hack'n'slash. We tried to use TSR modules when we could, but most of the time
we ran our own. For a while the mentality among the DM's (again sadly, I admit
I was one of them) was that each room must have 1 encounter. Mages don't
survive long in a 30 room dungeon w/ 30 different encounters when they only
have 1 spell. It wasn't until much later (college years in the late 80's), that
roleplaying became the focus of our games. Then the mages started to survive
longer. But they still have a stigma among the former players from
those earlier games.
> Not only to the classes balance
> more reasonably but being multiclass is not nearly as attractive due to
> the much greater mortality rates resulting from "lingering" at the very
> low levels for twice as long.
Interesting that you brought this up, because I was going to write about it
in my earlier post, but then decided to chop it out. What I was going to mention
was the fact that Fighter/Mages, Cleric/Mages and even Thief/Mages were able
to survive slightly better at 1st level than some of the other characters.
As you mention the huge experience penalty they end up paying causes problems
after 1st level until you reach around 5th-7th level.
--
Brent G. Davis
UserID: bdavis@rchland Internet: bgd...@vnet.ibm.com
Office: 040-3/E214 Phone:(507)253-0571 t/l:553-0571
barbara haddad
> Just one quick question and I really don't mean it as a flame or anything
> of the
> kind. Does this tragic stuff happen to the party because they're (or just
> Jacob) reckless? Or does it happen because it amuses you? Generally, I
> always thought that you should give the players some slack, to make them
> more heroic than they really are for the enjoyment of all. But that's of
> course just my opinion.
No flame taken. The rest of the party are all fighter (except for
the mage) and _are_ reckless. They do try to outdo each other. And
Jacob (the mage) thinks he's better than ALL of the party and
consequentially is _incredibly_ reckless -- constantly trying to show how
much better he is than the others -- with the upshot of getting himself
badly hurt/killed along the way.
As a side-note, this player plays mostly mages and the joke of the
other players is that said player is contantly trying to think of new
ways to get his characters killed (since almost all of his mages have a
sort of 'mages uber alles' attitude).
Me? I cut my players a lot of slack; frequently warn them with
clues about what they'll be facing - and let them _run_ (or just avoid)
from danger if they want. I also run a very magic-rich world, so there
are ways to bring dead PCs back (if they have the cash/will do the
quests) -- and hope this will help them learn from their mistakes. In
some ways, for some characters, it just serves as a way for some of the
characters to make a whole -new- batch of mistakes. :)
JohnnyB
Jonathan Nusholtz wrote:
>
>
> Well, I don't like it as a spell. I know that it can do all kind of little
> things, but why would a wizard memorize it instead of a killer like Magic
> Missile, Color Spray, or Sleep? There are probably more 1st-level spells
> than any other level, and wasting all those slots on something like
> Cantrip doesn't seem like a good way to survive.
The cantrip spell is often used in my campaign to produce those flashy
"Hollywood" type effects wizards are so fond of. Don't forget, to your
average peon, _any_ magic is impressive. Amaze the natives.
Instead of a spell, I use
> Cantrip as a proficiency (the idea was in a recent Dragon, I think #221)
> that wizards, priests, and thieves can learn.
I personally don't like any proficiency that can continually produce a
magical effect on a regular basis without using magic. Will this
proficiency work in a dead-magic or anti-magic area? If so, I think
should be tossed. Now thieves using pick pockets skill to do slight of
hand and/or card tricks is just fine with me.
JohnnyB
Justin Laliberty
On Wed, 23 Jul 1997, matthew dickinson wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>
> > I have been playing AD&D for about 2 years now and in all of this time
> > I haven't seen any reason for any person to play a mage.
>
Ever heard of a Force mage, Bunky? I play one and he could wipe
the floor with anybody. He lives in Sigil and I've used him to demolish
hoards of Hardheads (Harmonium, Sigil's cops). He's 6th level now, but
even at 5th I was able to take out mages twice my level (I actually
killed a 10th level mage being played by a vindictive mage who was really
out to get me). Can your measly fighters dish out 5d4 +12 points of
damage (guarenteed to hit, mind you) in one round? Can they dish out 2d4
one round, then 4d4 for the next 7 rounds (still guarenteed to hit)? I
don't think so. And the second our hero get Tensor's destructive
resonance he'll be able to take over whole cities. And he will too. Have
you ever heard of a War mage? That's him. Multiple personalities
cultivated in just seconds of being in Pandemonium have turned him into a
very unhappy dude. He hates hard headed bashers who think that blades
are all you need to prove your meetle. He likes to send berks like that
into the dead book. He belongs to the Indeps, the free league. And he
also has a spell that's better than some crappy healing spell. It's
Vampiric Touch. With that not only does he dish out the hurt to you, he
an gain more than his max hp. Can cure critical do that? I didn't think
so.
So, let's run by that again.
1. Can take care of mages X2 his level
2. Has killed 10 equal level warriors in one confrontation
3. Ended said battle with more hps than he started with (thanks to
Vampiric Touch)
4. Is played completly by the rules without min/maxing or being a rules
lawyer
5. Is vastly more fun to play than any warrior/priest any where
Have a nice day all...
-Spawn aka Meredoth, Vlad, "D" the Force mage
Bruce Blanchard
On Wed, 23 Jul 1997 05:33:44 GMT, jk...@mpb.com (Joshua Kaufman) wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jul 1997 16:20:49 GMT, Mike <zan...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>>I have been playing AD&D for about 2 years now and in all of this time
>>I haven't seen any reason for any person to play a mage. My group uses
>>all of the Players Option books but even then a mage is no match for a
>>cleric or a fighter. If the mage had some fighting ability then it
>>would be good but they have to rely on magic and even then they have to
>>learn all of the spells that they want to use. I would rather be a
>>cleric and fight and memorize any spell I want and use the PO:S&P and
>>S&M and take wizardly priest and cast any wizard spell that I want of
>>any one school.
>
>I usually end up playing clerics over mages. However, I enjoy playing
>a mage. It is a challenge. They are tough to keep alive at low
>levels, but once you get to a decent level, mages are scary. Can you
>imagine what a mage can do at higher levels? Just look at fireball.
>They can take out massive amounts of people with a third level spell.
>I think based on the discussion in here, most people think a mage can
>kick the butt of any fighter.
>
>Although I will say, I see your argument. I am not sure playing a
>mage is that much better than playing a cleric who can cast from one
>wizard school. I played in a game recently where the cleric chose
>alteration. He didn't seem to balance it off very well. (In other
>words, he seemed pretty powerful being able to cast a fair amount of
>his clerical spells and Alteration spells). I found it to be
>especially a problem considering that his "god" supposedly was giving
>him the alteration spells, while the mages still had to find their
>spells. So in that context, I will say skills and powers does make
>playing a cleric more appealing.
>
The only problem I find (being DM), is that the players like to choose the
Cleric and then a Deity, but then baulk, when I tell them that "You do realize
that you cannot leave for a week because you need to 2 days in prepatory details
of your holy week, another 2 days of fasting, 2 for the acutall ceremony and
Celebration, and then one to recover. I tend to make sure that if a Character
is getting "free" spells he's/she's gonna earn them! I've seen a few too many
DM's not do this and then the character really is not playing a Cleric, but a
Fighter that can heal and cast other nigfty spells. :-(
-Bruce
Jonathan Nusholtz
In article <33D8AB...@utkux.utcc.utk.edu>, joh...@utkux.utcc.utk.edu
says...
> Instead of a spell, I use
>> Cantrip as a proficiency (the idea was in a recent Dragon, I think
#221)
>> that wizards, priests, and thieves can learn.
>
>I personally don't like any proficiency that can continually produce a
>magical effect on a regular basis without using magic. Will this
>proficiency work in a dead-magic or anti-magic area? If so, I think
>should be tossed. Now thieves using pick pockets skill to do slight of
>hand and/or card tricks is just fine with me.
>
>JohnnyB
The cantrip proficiency allows whoever knows it to create minor magical
effects like the Cantrip spell. It's exactly like the spell in every other
way, so it wouldn't work under any conditions that the normal spell
wouldn't.
Mad Hatter
Lawrence R. Mead wrote:
>
> Mike (zan...@geocities.com) wrote:
> : I have been playing AD&D for about 2 years now and in all of this time
> : I haven't seen any reason for any person to play a mage. My group uses
> : all of the Players Option books but even then a mage is no match for a
> : cleric or a fighter. If the mage had some fighting ability then it
>
>
> DMGorgon
Actually, Gorgy, I don't think it's a troll, and to be quite honest, in
the last campaign I played (I was a ranger), It was 3 or 4 levels before
we had a wizard of any sorts. An illusionist. Boy, was that fun, trying
to infiltrate a tower with no invisibility, scaring off some
jermalaines, without the power of illusion, never cast a single
fireball, except by as friendly NPC mage. Doing things the hard way. Of
course, we had two clerics, and something like a paladin, to "help" us
get over our "hardships".
Wizards are handy, but non-magical parties are more fun, IMHO.
Especially if you use C&T, and firearms, to build a reneisance like
world, a la three musketeers.
P.S. I just bought the C&T, and I *REALLY* don't see whaty all the fuss
(munchkin hunt) is all about! The critical scheme is really a great one,
and makes a lot of sense, the initiative scheme is faster than the
standard scheme, and better, IMO, the more complete listing of weapons
is great, knockdown rules, dueling and all. The only rule that gives
more power to warriors (which is way overdue, IMO), is the mastery rule
which is even balanced by the fact that the warrior can SPECIALIZE in
only one weapon, unlike under the PHB, where after 1st level you may
specialize in as many as you like.
I personally think that the anti-PO movement, was merely a childish
propoganda, by radical 1st-ed-die-hards. Long live C&T, which should
have come out as the CFHB!
--
My New Year's Resolution is:
1024 x 768
Stewart
Justin Laliberty wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Jul 1997, matthew dickinson wrote:
>
> >
> > > I have been playing AD&D for about 2 years now and in all of this time
> > > I haven't seen any reason for any person to play a mage.
> >
Zachary P. Stewart
MadAfro
da...@wehi.edu.au (Ian Davis) saith:
>Take my old friend Aileron, later known as Aileron Nine-finger, then
>Aileron Four-finger, then Aileron Ten-finger, then Aileron Eleven-finger.
>He once avoided arrest because he no longer matched the description on
the
>wanted poster. And then there's the story of how my mage lost his
>eyebrows...
>Unfortunately, our group of characters tends to stand out a bit after all
>these years.
I must tell you about Balur. Balur is a PC in a game I've been running
ever since October of 1995. He started out as the prototypical
red-blodded Cimmerian clone. 6'9", well-tanned, perfect skin, corded
muscles, raven-black hair.
As of July 1997, Balur is bald, tattooed, with chalk-white skin. He has
traded his armor for a priest's robes, and now wears a iron cross around
his neck. He has so many scars you wonder how he can even move without
pulling his bones out of joint. We're talking from Conan to Nosferatu
here. ;)
Grin on...
(then there's the PC sentient gem who has formed symbiotic relationships
with a dragon-man, a kender, and a half-demonic street urchin....)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jay Knioum
The Mad Afro @8)
Patrick C. Collins
In article <EDqAs...@nonexistent.com>, Mike <zan...@geocities.com> wrote:
>I have been playing AD&D for about 2 years now and in all of this time
>all of the Players Option books but even then a mage is no match for a
>cleric or a fighter. If the mage had some fighting ability then it
>learn all of the spells that they want to use. I would rather be a
>cleric and fight and memorize any spell I want and use the PO:S&P and
>S&M and take wizardly priest and cast any wizard spell that I want of
>any one school.
>
Well, just peruse...lemme think...the player's handbook. The complete
wizard's handbook. The greyhawk 1st ed. handbook. The FR 2nd edition
handbook. The Tome of Magic. The last 230 issues of Dragon.
I think in there you might find some reason to play a mage. NOw,
I haven't read the PO:S&P at all, and I don't know about your
almighty fighter/wizard-priest. And as far as limiting yourself
to one school.....
Sounds like a potential munchkin alert. I'd rather have
a level 20 mage over a level 20 fighter any day....provided you
can have that very fighter save your ass to about level 12 or so.
My friend, I think you need to rethink the mage. For,
without them, your wizardly priest would just be another
bandaid to the party.
Try some imagination....
-Pat
--
______________________________________________________________________________
Patrick C. Collins pcol...@expert.cc.purdue.edu
Purdue University Class of 1997
Biochemical and Food Process Engineering
Bruce L. Grubb
In article <5rg217$i...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, pcol...@expert.cc.purdue.edu
(Patrick C. Collins) wrote:
> In article <EDqAs...@nonexistent.com>, Mike <zan...@geocities.com> wrote:
> >I have been playing AD&D for about 2 years now and in all of this time
> >I haven't seen any reason for any person to play a mage. My group uses
> >all of the Players Option books but even then a mage is no match for a
> >cleric or a fighter. If the mage had some fighting ability then it
> >would be good but they have to rely on magic and even then they have to
> >learn all of the spells that they want to use. I would rather be a
> >cleric and fight and memorize any spell I want and use the PO:S&P and
> >S&M and take wizardly priest and cast any wizard spell that I want of
> >any one school.
> >
> >- Just my two cents
>
>
> Well, just peruse...lemme think...the player's handbook. The complete
> wizard's handbook. The greyhawk 1st ed. handbook. The FR 2nd edition
> handbook. The Tome of Magic. The last 230 issues of Dragon.
If you have to go this far and wide afield then IMHO there is something
way wrong with the way the mage is presented in the PHB. The fact of the
matter is that the AD&D system is still combat driven and all the add-ons
are not going to change that.
> My friend, I think you need to rethink the mage. For,
> without them, your wizardly priest would just be another
> bandaid to the party.
>
> Try some imagination....
The problem is that the system make mages suck big time at the 1-3 levels
and then has to powerlevel go off the flipping scale at level 6 there
abouts.
Garrie Irons
Stewart wrote:
>
> Justin Laliberty wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 23 Jul 1997, matthew dickinson wrote:
> >
> > > Mike wrote:
> > >
<<SNIP> >
> > Ever heard of a Force mage, Bunky? I play one and he could wipe
> > the floor with anybody. He lives in Sigil and I've used him to <<SNIP>>
> > out to get me). Can your measly fighters dish out 5d4 +12 points of
> > damage (guarenteed to hit, mind you) in one round? Can they dish out 2d4
> > one round, then 4d4 for the next 7 rounds (still guarenteed to hit)? First is "only" Magic Missile, don't know the second off the top of my
head but I'm sure it's fairly mundane...
I
> > don't think so. And the second our hero get Tensor's destructive
> > resonance he'll be able to take over whole cities. And he will too. Sounds realistic if the guys that way inclined.
Have
> > you ever heard of a War mage? That's him. Multiple personalities
> > cultivated in just seconds of being in Pandemonium have turned him into a
> > very unhappy dude. He hates hard headed bashers who think that blades
> > are all you need to prove your meetle. He likes to send berks like that
> > into the dead book. He belongs to the Indeps, the free league. And And if that does not sound like nearly any begruged mage then what does?
he
> > also has a spell that's better than some crappy healing spell. It's
> > Vampiric Touch. With that not only does he dish out the hurt to you, he
> > an gain more than his max hp. Can cure critical do that? I didn't think
> > so.
> > So, let's run by that again.
> >
> > 1. Can take care of mages X2 his level
> > 2. Has killed 10 equal level warriors in one confrontation
> > 3. Ended said battle with more hps than he started with (thanks to
> > Vampiric Touch)
> > 4. Is played completly by the rules without min/maxing or being a rules
> > lawyer
> > 5. Is vastly more fun to play than any warrior/priest any where
> >
> > Have a nice day all...
> >
> > -Spawn aka Meredoth, Vlad, "D" the Force mage
> I don't know about the rest of you, but he sounds like a munchkin to me.
>
> Zachary P. Stewart
Zachary, I don't know where your idea of Munchkin comes from but if
that's
it then I'll keep playing this side of the pond...
Garrie.
Michael White
On Tue, 22 Jul 1997 16:20:49 GMT, Mike <zan...@geocities.com> wrote:
>I have been playing AD&D for about 2 years now and in all of this time
>I haven't seen any reason for any person to play a mage. My group uses
>all of the Players Option books but even then a mage is no match for a
>cleric or a fighter. If the mage had some fighting ability then it
>would be good but they have to rely on magic and even then they have to
>learn all of the spells that they want to use. I would rather be a
>cleric and fight and memorize any spell I want and use the PO:S&P and
>S&M and take wizardly priest and cast any wizard spell that I want of
>any one school.
>
>- Just my two cents
First of all at low levels yes a mage is no match for a
cleric, fighter, or even a rouge. However even a mid level mage is
more than a match for ANY fighter. Give me a 9th level mage vs a 9th
level fighter and the mage will crush the fighter every time, this is
even more so with the PO books.
This is of course baring dead magic zones, or the fighter
catching the mage unawares or sleeping or sum such bunk.
Just my .02$ worth.
Joshua Kaufman
On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 13:57:14 GMT, mwh...@netwalk.com (Michael White)
wrote:
> First of all at low levels yes a mage is no match for a
>cleric, fighter, or even a rouge.
I think I have to disagree with you here. Judging from the debate on
who is better (a fighter or mage) in one-on-one combat, the majority
of people seemed to pick the mage.
However even a mid level mage is
>more than a match for ANY fighter. Give me a 9th level mage vs a 9th
>level fighter and the mage will crush the fighter every time, this is
>even more so with the PO books.
A 9th level mage should be able to crush a 9th level fighter, yes.
Especially with spells like stoneskin, fly, mirror image, etc., the
mage just has too much firepower at high levels. (Even if the mage
and fighter begin the contest on even terms.)
Dominic Nguyen
Vinicius Rodrigues de Moraes wrote:
>
> Scorpio wrote:
> >
> >
> > You obviously haven't played a high level campaign yet! Believe me, if
> > you can find a way for the mage to survive through lower levels, Mages
> > start getting really nasty around 11th level (even sooner if you use
> > your spells imaginatively).
[insert my Cantrip rant here, you've seen it enough times :]
and if you want some more imagination, check out the illusion school.
:)
> > Don't underestimate mages, they make great characters (in the long run).
>
> Again: totally right: let's say, REALLY low level, only 2 casting level:
> waht a hevay slab can do falling from 10 m above someone? That's
A heavy slab? Wow, that's one fat mage :)
> levitate, Mr.!
> ;-)
Well, actually, that's Telekinesis, a significantly higher level spell
than levitate :P
If you did the above with levitate, you'd take (just a second,
metric-American Standard conversion in progress)... 3D6+ damage (the
plus is if your DM decides to be nasty and add in the extra few feet or
so as another couple of damage or another die).
-----
"DEATH FROM BELOW!"
-the new war cry of my gnomish illusionist/thief
(comes right after FIRE ME, BOY! :)
Peng
Yes, indeed, mages are useless at low levels and need extreme patience to
play. However, as said, even mild wizards at 9th level (well, I really
don't think that is very mild. My campaigns always seem low level) can
destroy a fighter. Take the spell stoneskin. It lasts until attacks
obliterate the duration. Otherwise it lasts forever. After one round with
a measly fighter hacking at you, you can cast an ice wall in front of him
and block him off from a corridor or even use a wall of iron to fall on
him. After that, some of your spells can easily reach behind the wall
(like vents for cloudkill if you high enough level to cast that many fourth
level spells in one day. Or you can use Evard's Black Tentacles or summon
monsters. Phantasmal Killer, fatal illusions and charm person will do the
job just as nicely.) The possibilities are endless, especially if you
research spells!
Michael White <mwh...@netwalk.com> wrote in article
<33dca3e3...@News.netwalk.com>...
> On Tue, 22 Jul 1997 16:20:49 GMT, Mike <zan...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> >I have been playing AD&D for about 2 years now and in all of this time
> >I haven't seen any reason for any person to play a mage. My group uses
> >all of the Players Option books but even then a mage is no match for a
> >cleric or a fighter. If the mage had some fighting ability then it
> >would be good but they have to rely on magic and even then they have to
> >learn all of the spells that they want to use. I would rather be a
> >cleric and fight and memorize any spell I want and use the PO:S&P and
> >S&M and take wizardly priest and cast any wizard spell that I want of
> >any one school.
> >
> >- Just my two cents
> First of all at low levels yes a mage is no match for a
> cleric, fighter, or even a rouge. However even a mid level mage is
> more than a match for ANY fighter. Give me a 9th level mage vs a 9th
> level fighter and the mage will crush the fighter every time, this is
> even more so with the PO books.
Mr. Tines
###
On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 18:35:57 -0700, in <bgrubb-2707...@10.0.2.15>
bgr...@acca.nmsu.edu (Bruce L. Grubb) wrote.....
> The problem is that the system make mages suck big time at the 1-3 levels
> and then has to powerlevel go off the flipping scale at level 6 there
> abouts.
Agreed. That's why I've reached the point of starting characters of about
3-4th level, and keeping real stingy with xp, so that they are a long time
reaching 7th and thereby join the crowd of high-levellers occasionally
brought out of retirement for a cathartic kick-ass session.
-- PGP fingerprint: BC 01 55 27 B4 93 7C 9B 3C 54 D1 B7 24 8C 08 BC --
_______ {pegwit v8 public key =581cbf05be9899262ab4bb6a0847069c10bcfbca89}
/_ __(_)__ ___ ___ {4a5bf8d208d001b829d4d0} (encrypted mail perferred)
/ / / / _ \/ -_|_-< PGP key at http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/1394
/_/ /_/_//_/\__/___/@windsong.demon.co.uk (or mr_tines at geocities.com)
### end pegwit v8 signed text
8311e2971069e33e58c23d8651500e573c78f8916faebfef947144ca7992
166ed5b287c8746d75cd6370d17d7c884142c6dcf85e2939e32ff6020d90
Mad Hatter
Garrie Irons wrote:
>
> Stewart wrote:
<long boring mutterings about the powers of a force mage>
> >I don't know about the rest of you, but he sounds like a munchkin to me.
> >
> > Zachary P. Stewart
> Zachary, I don't know where your idea of Munchkin comes from but if
> that's
> it then I'll keep playing this side of the pond...
>
> Garrie.
IMHO, it's to little info to say if he's a munchkin, but he definately
is a power gamer. I don't know what level that mage is, but the damage
he dished out seems a bit much. If so, he might well be a munchkin.
Brent Davis
> However, as said, even mild wizards at 9th level (well, I really
> don't think that is very mild. My campaigns always seem low level) can
> destroy a fighter. Take the spell stoneskin.
Almost everytime I see one of these mage vs. X arguments, the same spells keep
getting quoted (stoneskin, fireball, magic missile, etc.). Now granted, those
spells may be common enough in some campaigns (Monty Haul or not) that every
single wizard finds those exact spells (possibly multiple times over). However,
this should be the exception rather than the rule, IMHO.
Thus, when trying to test the average mage vs. an average representative from
another class, I maintain that THE SPELLS MAKE THE MAGE. Giving the mage the
luxury of a killer spellbook for these challenges begins to border on
munchkinism, IMHO. As wizards adventure, they tend to find a more eclectic
mix of spells. Even then, they still need to be learned. Sure the mage
can try to research those awesome spells on his own, but in the meantime the
rest of the world is out there adventuring, gaining items and experience.
To make these challenges fair, this all needs to be taken into account.
Do this and that supposedly killer mage can start looking awfully feeble.
Short story related to this topic - in a former campaign, we had a mage make
9th level and his only 5th level spell was Animate Dead. He was Lawful Good
as was the rest of the party. Still he had no real choice but to memorize it.
In one adventure, most of the party died, and the mage used Animate Dead to
walk the dead characters out of the dungeon. Terrific use of the spell, but the
priest wasn't too happy about it. It lead to an atonement-type adventure.
Stewart
BTW, you can stay on your side of the pond Garrie, we don't need you.
Zach Stewart
Fergus Gibson
Joshua Kaufman wrote in article <33dd1a4b...@news.dx.net>...
>>However even a mid level mage is
>>more than a match for ANY fighter. Give me a 9th level mage vs a 9th
>>level fighter and the mage will crush the fighter every time, this is
>>even more so with the PO books.
>
>A 9th level mage should be able to crush a 9th level fighter, yes.
>Especially with spells like stoneskin, fly, mirror image, etc., the
>mage just has too much firepower at high levels. (Even if the mage
>and fighter begin the contest on even terms.)
I think the mage has some real vulnerabilities to a fighter of the same
level. Yes, if the fighter stood in the middle of plain at a good distance
from the mage and said, "I'm here to kill you; do your worst!" there would
be no contest. On the other hand, if he dropped on top of an unsuspecting
mage from a ledge or another such hidden position, the mage is dead.
I think any mage of power should have bodyguards of one form or another. If
a fighter gets close to a mage of similar level, that mage is in serious
danger of death. It really comes down to who's smarter. Maybe I'm being
silly, but the one-on-one contest seems more evenly matched than people are
suggesting.
Mad Hatter
I'm really curious, why, Garrie, do you think that the force mage's not
a munchkin?
He: 1. Talks like "my mage can beat yours".
2. Has *WAY* over powered spells for his level. Come on, you got to
see that... The fireball is supposed to be the most powerful
offensive 3rd level spell (and one of the best all around offensive
spells), And this force mage casts spells that are *FAR* more
powerful...
3. Is only level 5, for crying out loud.
All this falls under the headline of munchkin.
OTOH, at least he isn't a 9th level fighter/thief, with an artifact
sword, who can slay a demigod in one round, and goes by the name of
Do'Urden...
Bill Mullen
In <5rlm1s$tra$1...@news.rchland.ibm.com> bda...@moriarty.rchland.ibm.com
(Brent Davis) writes:
>
>> However, as said, even mild wizards at 9th level (well, I really
>> don't think that is very mild. My campaigns always seem low level)
can
>> destroy a fighter. Take the spell stoneskin.
>
>Almost everytime I see one of these mage vs. X arguments, the same
spells keep
>getting quoted (stoneskin, fireball, magic missile, etc.). Now
granted, those
>spells may be common enough in some campaigns (Monty Haul or not) that
every
>single wizard finds those exact spells (possibly multiple times over).
However,
>this should be the exception rather than the rule, IMHO.
I disagree. Some spells (like Stoneskin) are so valuable to have
that I would consider a Mage who didn't have it to be a fool. Even if
the DM doesn't allow the Mage to find it in a spellbook, the Mage can
always research it.
>Thus, when trying to test the average mage vs. an average
representative from
>another class, I maintain that THE SPELLS MAKE THE MAGE. Giving the
mage the
>luxury of a killer spellbook for these challenges begins to border on
>munchkinism, IMHO.
Mages can make their OWN spellbooks, no DM giveaways required.
As wizards adventure, they tend to find a more eclectic
>mix of spells. Even then, they still need to be learned. Sure the
mage
>can try to research those awesome spells on his own, but in the
meantime the
>rest of the world is out there adventuring, gaining items and
experience.
Adventuring without your Mage is asking for death. If he REALLY
wants to take 8 weeks off to research Stoneskin, I'm sure the party
members can find useful things to do (if they want. They could always
take a vacation :)). In fact, if I was a Fighter, I would INSIST we
take the time off (Fighters LIKE to be Stoneskinned).
>To make these challenges fair, this all needs to be taken into
account.
>Do this and that supposedly killer mage can start looking awfully
feeble.
IMO, a Mage that depends on luck alone to put together his
spellbook IS feeble. You can research spells even at 1st level.
Peace :)
Bill
maxpot46
Brent Davis
> I disagree. Some spells (like Stoneskin) are so valuable to have
> that I would consider a Mage who didn't have it to be a fool. Even if
> the DM doesn't allow the Mage to find it in a spellbook, the Mage can
> always research it.
This depends a lot on the campaign. In all of the ones I've participated in
(granted, over half were 1st edition), only one of those groups ever had
Stoneskin. It is a powerful spell, which IMHO, gets overused (and abused)
when it is introduced into a party. However, I would hardly call any mage
without it a fool. Less privileged, perhaps, but not a fool.
> Mages can make their OWN spellbooks, no DM giveaways required.
Again, this depends on the campaign. I've had DM's rule in the past that the
only way to find a specific spell was via adventuring. Research only allows
the mage to make their own unique spells. Plus, there is cost, time and a
tremendous chance of failure on top of it all. Sometimes a DM will not come
out and say, "You can't do that." Only after you try fruitlessly for X sessions
does the player realize that the character just isn't going to be able to
research that particular spell. From speaking to other players and DM's, this
is a very common approach rather than the exception.
> Adventuring without your Mage is asking for death. If he REALLY
> wants to take 8 weeks off to research Stoneskin, I'm sure the party
> members can find useful things to do (if they want. They could always
> take a vacation :)).
You must be used to adventuring in nice relaxed campaigns where you have the
luxury of taking 8 weeks off to research, vacation, frolic on the beach, etc.
In my campaigns (as DM or player) this doesn't happen. Surrounding events
usually demand immediate action. Otherwise, the window of opportunity
vanishes, or even worse, the bad guys win, etc. I try to run very politically-
oriented campaigns, where the party is immersed in intrigue. Often, the party
ends up adventuring short-handed when members are training or healing. It
doesn't matter who is missing: the mage, the thief, etc. When action needs to
be taken, it is. If not, the party misses out on those opportunities, etc.
Now, there are times, when the party ends up with a large amount of free
time, perhaps even months at a time. When that happens, it is usually the DM's
way of saying, "OK. You've earned some time off. Rest up and do your research.
You're definitely going to need it. BWAHAHA!!!" But these breaks are entirely
up to the DM. If the player/character is able to schedule them whenever they
want, the DM isn't doing his campaign justice, IMHO.
> IMO, a Mage that depends on luck alone to put together his
> spellbook IS feeble. You can research spells even at 1st level.
That's your opinion. I doubt there are many 1st level mages that have the
resources, money or the patience of fellow adventuring comrades to research
their spells. Example:
"Arzak, we would like you to help us rescue the mayor's daughter from the
bandits. We just learned where they will be camped for at least one more day."
"Umm... I'm still researching that sleep spell. I think I'll have it by
next week."
"Whatever... Looks like we'll be going without you!"
As for luck, that's part of being a wizard, IMHO. Finding new spells is often
a driving force for why wizards adventure. Otherwise, why would they bother
to adventure? Funding? Much easier and safer to set up a business in a city.
If the DM lets wizards continually research any damn spell they want, much of
the fun is lost, IMHO. If this continues, the DM is likely to end up with a
munchkin for a mage. IMHO, a good DM will hand out a fair mix of spells
during adventures (not too weak nor too strong), and occassionally allow some
research for unique spell ideas. That's the method I've been happiest with as
a player and DM.
Shay
sonny hays-eberts wrote:
> hmm, unless the game has changed radically in the last 10 years since i
> played, a 3rd level or higher cleric can demolish an archmage, _in
> theory_. silence 15' r. used to prevent the casting of any spell with
> verbal components - most if not all mage spells under ad&d v.1. toss the
> silence on a rock, (no save) and throw the rock near the mage. if the
> party can keep the mage within 15' of the silenced stone - no spells, no
> command words for staves or wands, and pretty much a dead mage; barring a
> magic item which can be activated soundlessly. in a small room or
> corridor, it wouldn't be that difficult to accomplish such a feat.
>
> always thought that particular spell had an absurdly strong side effect.
> was it ever altered to be less devastating when directed at mages?
Isn't there a spell, Vocalize, in the UA, pretty specificially designed
to counteract Silence 15'?
sonny hays-eberts
In article <33DF71...@usa.net>, "K. Templer" <k-te...@usa.net> wrote:
> someone at TSR came up with a solution in Complete Wizard Handbook. It
> is a second level spell call Vocalize. SM only and for the next five
> rounds the mage can cast any spell with a verbal component, without
> having to emit any sound....
>
> 2nd level..... a good archmage (18 level) most probably have most of the
> second level spells by now....
well, that's why i added the qualifier 'unless the game has changed
radically in the last 10 years'. i would hope such a major flaw would have
been attended to, but being out of the game for some 10 years, i didn't
know for sure. it did seem very unbalancing
if the mage blows his spell comprehension roll (15% even for 18 INT, iirc)
for 'vocalize', he's still in trouble. unless that mechanism fled by the
wayside as well??
it was another one i found somewhat puzzling in it's finality - esp. since
a lot of the mages my players had didn't have 18 INT, 15-17 was common. i
always allowed mages a chance to re-try after a significant time lapse.
just because i didn't grok differential equations in high school didn't
mean i was never able to understand them.
Margravine
sonny hays-eberts wrote:
>
> In article <33DF71...@usa.net>, "K. Templer" <k-te...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> > someone at TSR came up with a solution in Complete Wizard Handbook. It
> > is a second level spell call Vocalize. SM only and for the next five
> > rounds the mage can cast any spell with a verbal component, without
> > having to emit any sound....
>
> well, that's why i added the qualifier 'unless the game has changed
> radically in the last 10 years'. i would hope such a major flaw would have
> been attended to, but being out of the game for some 10 years, i didn't
> know for sure. it did seem very unbalancing
>
> if the mage blows his spell comprehension roll (15% even for 18 INT, iirc)
> for 'vocalize', he's still in trouble. unless that mechanism fled by the
> wayside as well??
>
Also, Silence 15' has a casting time of 5 or so. It could easily get
interrupted (she says ruefully, remembering just how often her
priest's spells get interrupted in combat).
You're allowed to make another spell comprehension roll for ones you
missed when you go up another level as well.
Dominic Nguyen
Mad Hatter wrote:
<Kal, son of Jor-el, KNEEL BEFORE SNIP>
> OTOH, at least he isn't a 9th level fighter/thief, with an artifact
> sword, who can slay a demigod in one round, and goes by the name of
> Do'Urden...
*shudder*
Please don't bring that up again. PLEASE.
I'll give you money. Tribute. The rights to my intellectual property!
(just kidding 'bout that last one, who'd want it? ;)
That was a dark hour in the time of RGFD. It was fun, but it was stupid
and utterly pointless.
Well, okay, there was a point to it. We beat on rules twisting and the
ignoring of disadvantages. But it wasn't good.
I think I'll stop now before I stop gibbering (too late :)
-----
"To-morrow, To-morrow, and to-morrow
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day...
....
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
-MacBeth, act 5, scene 5
"Can you remember what he said after all those 'to-morrow's?"
-Wyrd Sisters, by Terry Pratchett
Neal Dutta
ebe...@oregon.uoregon.edu (sonny hays-eberts) wrote:
>know for sure. it did seem very unbalancing
>if the mage blows his spell comprehension roll (15% even for 18 INT, iirc)
>for 'vocalize', he's still in trouble. unless that mechanism fled by the
>wayside as well??
You can retry when you gain another level, same as with thieves and
picking locks.
Neal Dutta
Bruce L. Grubb
In article <5ro750$aum$1...@usenet76.supernews.com>, ne...@fundy.net (Neal
Dutta) wrote:
I disliked the whole spell comprehension thing. It made more sence for
every spell to have a change to succeed or fail (baced on mage level) on
*casting* rather than in comprehension.
K. Templer
> hmm, unless the game has changed radically in the last 10 years since i
> played, a 3rd level or higher cleric can demolish an archmage, _in
> theory_. silence 15' r. used to prevent the casting of any spell with
> verbal components - most if not all mage spells under ad&d v.1. toss the
> silence on a rock, (no save) and throw the rock near the mage. if the
> party can keep the mage within 15' of the silenced stone - no spells, no
> command words for staves or wands, and pretty much a dead mage; barring a
> magic item which can be activated soundlessly. in a small room or
> corridor, it wouldn't be that difficult to accomplish such a feat.
>
is a second level spell call Vocalize. SM only and for the next five
rounds the mage can cast any spell with a verbal component, without
having to emit any sound....
2nd level..... a good archmage (18 level) most probably have most of the
second level spells by now....
K. Templer
Joshua Kaufman
On 31 Jul 1997 04:53:27 GMT, zzt...@mailbox.uq.edu.au (Travis Hall)
wrote:
>However, Vocalise is very useful, if you can get it. I have recently been
>playing a wizard who combines Vocalise with Invisibility. You can't see me
>cast, you can't hear me cast. Really helps keep a wizard's famed secrets.
>(That's a bit of an oxymoron.)
It is better with improved invisiblity. The problem with using
vocalize with invisiblity is that if it is an attack spell, your
invisibility is lost. Although, even if you had some type of
invisiblity, someone may still figure out where you are, because they
see magic coming from an area where there is no person. A possible
perception check would be in order, depending on combat, etc.
Peter Verschuren
Michael White wrote in article <33dca3e3...@News.netwalk.com>...
>On Tue, 22 Jul 1997 16:20:49 GMT, Mike <zan...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>>I have been playing AD&D for about 2 years now and in all of this time
>>I haven't seen any reason for any person to play a mage. My group uses
>>all of the Players Option books but even then a mage is no match for a
>>cleric or a fighter. If the mage had some fighting ability then it
>>would be good but they have to rely on magic and even then they have to
>>learn all of the spells that they want to use. I would rather be a
>>cleric and fight and memorize any spell I want and use the PO:S&P and
>>S&M and take wizardly priest and cast any wizard spell that I want of
>>any one school.
>>
>>- Just my two cents
> First of all at low levels yes a mage is no match for a
>cleric, fighter, or even a rouge. However even a mid level mage is
>more than a match for ANY fighter. Give me a 9th level mage vs a 9th
>level fighter and the mage will crush the fighter every time, this is
>even more so with the PO books.
> This is of course baring dead magic zones, or the fighter
>catching the mage unawares or sleeping or sum such bunk.
> Just my .02$ worth.
>
I do not agree a humble low level mage is no match for a fighter. There
are
some nasty spells available to him. At the moment I play a second level
shadow mage in the company of a 2nd lvl fighter and 3rd level priest.
Lately we were ambushed by a bunch of orcs (perhaps 20?).
Round 1: fighter kills 1 orc; priest casts sanctuary; mage casts sleep ( 4
orcs asleep).
Round 2: fighter kills 2 orcs; priest cast entangle (3 orcs catched); mage
casts color spray (4 orcs uncons).
Round 3: fighter kills 1 orc; priest cast hold person (4 orcs hold); mage
casts burning hands (1 orc dead).
You may count for yourself, I don't see any inferiority of the mage or any
other character.
Travis Hall
K. Templer (k-te...@usa.net) wrote:
: > hmm, unless the game has changed radically in the last 10 years since i
: > played, a 3rd level or higher cleric can demolish an archmage, _in
: > theory_. silence 15' r. used to prevent the casting of any spell with
: > verbal components
: someone at TSR came up with a solution in Complete Wizard Handbook. It
: is a second level spell call Vocalize. SM only and for the next five
: rounds the mage can cast any spell with a verbal component, without
: having to emit any sound....
Actually, that one's been around for a while now. I think it was
previously in the UA. While UA was pretty bad in general, there were some
good spells, a number of which have never re-surfaced in 2nd Edition.
: 2nd level..... a good archmage (18 level) most probably have most of the
: second level spells by now....
Now that's fairly debatable. I have made a list of the so-called "common"
spells for my campaign and the list is something like 65 spells (for 2nd
level, that is). I haven't even gone into the uncommon or
specially-researched spells. That's an awful lot of spells for even an
archmage to have learnt. (Especially if you use the limit on the number of
spells of each level due to intelligence.)
However, Vocalise is very useful, if you can get it. I have recently been
playing a wizard who combines Vocalise with Invisibility. You can't see me
cast, you can't hear me cast. Really helps keep a wizard's famed secrets.
(That's a bit of an oxymoron.)
--
Why is it that when I do finally get around to creating a .sig file, I
can't think of a single witty thing to say in it?
The Wraith
Sea Wasp
Bill Mullen wrote:
>
> In <5rlm1s$tra$1...@news.rchland.ibm.com> bda...@moriarty.rchland.ibm.com
> (Brent Davis) writes:
> >
> >> However, as said, even mild wizards at 9th level (well, I really
> >> don't think that is very mild. My campaigns always seem low level)
> can
> >> destroy a fighter. Take the spell stoneskin.
> >
> >Almost everytime I see one of these mage vs. X arguments, the same
> spells keep
> >getting quoted (stoneskin, fireball, magic missile, etc.). Now
> granted, those
> >spells may be common enough in some campaigns (Monty Haul or not) that
> every
> >single wizard finds those exact spells (possibly multiple times over).
> However,
> >this should be the exception rather than the rule, IMHO.
>
> that I would consider a Mage who didn't have it to be a fool. Even if
> the DM doesn't allow the Mage to find it in a spellbook, the Mage can
> always research it.
I'd consider the mage who just started researching "Stoneskin" to be a
PC using Player knowledge, and he'd be foredoomed to failure. Unless the
mage in question has SEEN stoneskin in action (and knew he was seeing a
spell and not something else), he has absolutely no reason to research
that particular spell unless it happens to be a spell that's naturally
in his specialty. A mage who focused on getting defensive spells,
researching defenses, and so on, would be likely to research such a
thing. One who was more focused on "the best defense is a good offense"
is a different matter.
Even when playing "myself" in a Middle-Earth campaign (see the story
"An American Gamer in Gondor", so far parts 1-6) I had to rely more on
luck than anything else to get spells. Right. I'm here in a backwoods
city in the middle of nowhere, no resources, no lab materials. And I
want to research a spell. I think maybe not. There are a LOT of times
where research isn't a reasonable alternative. In my current campaign,
the players HAVE taken time off several times to allow the alchemist to
manufacture stuff and the mage to do his work. But nowhere NEAR enough
time for them to research all of these "must-have" spells. I don't think
I've seen "Stoneskin" used more than once in all the years I've been
playing. It just isn't much of a factor.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Herman the Archmage
On Tue, 22 Jul 1997 Mike wrote:
> I have been playing AD&D for about 2 years now and in all of this time
> I haven't seen any reason for any person to play a mage.
Because you feel like it, you fool pig-dog.
> My group uses
> all of the Players Option books but even then a mage is no match for a
> cleric or a fighter.
No match? Ha! I will take your fighter and put him on fire! I will stick
his feet in the ground and drop a wall of fire on him and leave him
because he is so inconsequential to Herman the Archmage and I will forget
about him. He will be toasty and crispy and then I will feed him to my dog
because he is not fit for the consumption of the great and mighty Herman
the Archmage!
I will take your cleric and put him in a box and put the box on fire and
make him hurt! Then I will take what's left and mail it to his god so his
minor trickster deity will see what happens to minor spell flinging pig
dog scum!
> If the mage had some fighting ability then it
> would be good but they have to rely on magic and even then they have to
> learn all of the spells that they want to use.
Ha! You silly pig-dog, what else do you expect a mage to do? Rely on
spaghetti? Learn all the jigs that they want to use?
> I would rather be a
> cleric and fight and memorize any spell I want and use the PO:S&P and
> S&M and take wizardly priest and cast any wizard spell that I want of
> any one school.
Player's option? Ha! You little little pig-dog munchkin! I fart in your
general direction!
You are nothing to Herman the Archmage! You are like dust!
[hock-ptooie!]
Ha! You see that glob of green I spat out the window? That glob of green
is more important to me than you are, and I threw it away! Ha!
Your little sword swinger couldn't cut the hair off a gibberling! Your
little god boy couldn't pray away cold hands! What does the fighter wave
that hunk of metal for? Is he fanning me because I am hot? I will make him
go away! I do not need his fanning. I am Herman the Archmage! I am great
and mighty! I could snap my fingers and blow a mountain over, never mind
fanning myself. I know all! I spit on that silly cleric. I spit on his
god! His god is a minor trickster! His god couldn't smite away an itchy
butt! His god couldn't flood an ant hill! His god couldn't cause a red pea
to part before him! His god couldn't heal a stuffed nose!
I will take the little wind maker and that pathetic prayer maker, and I
will make them hurt as I toast them into ash. I will put the ash in a pot
and leave it in the basement and I will forget about them because they are
so inconsequential to the great and mighty Herman the Archmage!
Your fighter's mother was a hampster and your cleric's father smelled of
elderberries!
Now go away before I taunt you a second time!
--
FLOWERY
TWATS
If you both email and post, and don't say so in your article, I shall have
to beat you about the head with an angry stick.
Herman the Archmage
On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Mike wrote:
> I also have to say, What happens when your mage has no spellbook or is
> left without the material components? I will admit that there are many
> useful spells that don't require material components but a lot of the
> more powerful ones do. As for the spellbook, any self respecting high
> level mage will have some kind of a backup spellbook but, sometimes he
> may not be able to get to it.
What happens if your fighter is without sword because I melted it into a
little puddle? What happens if your cleric is without a holy symbol
because I fed it to a goat?
Ha! Why would I be without spell book? I always have my spell book. If I'm
not with spell book, that means someone has taken my spellbook, which
means I still have my spellbook because I would have already killed the
pig-dog scum for even thinking of such a thing!
Are you thinking of taking my spell book? Try to take Herman the
Archmage's spellbook when you have no arms! Ha! I will take them off, you
little pig-dog, for even bringing up the subject.
--
Whatever you do, don't mention the war.
I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.
Bruce Blanchard
On 30 Jul 1997 15:31:08 GMT, bda...@moriarty.rchland.ibm.com (Brent Davis)
wrote:
>> Adventuring without your Mage is asking for death. If he REALLY
>> wants to take 8 weeks off to research Stoneskin, I'm sure the party
>> members can find useful things to do (if they want. They could always
>> take a vacation :)).
>
>You must be used to adventuring in nice relaxed campaigns where you have the
>luxury of taking 8 weeks off to research, vacation, frolic on the beach, etc.
>In my campaigns (as DM or player) this doesn't happen. Surrounding events
>usually demand immediate action. Otherwise, the window of opportunity
>vanishes, or even worse, the bad guys win, etc. I try to run very politically-
>oriented campaigns, where the party is immersed in intrigue. Often, the party
>ends up adventuring short-handed when members are training or healing. It
>doesn't matter who is missing: the mage, the thief, etc. When action needs to
>be taken, it is. If not, the party misses out on those opportunities, etc.
When I DM, I tend to give time at the end of lower level campaigns to rest-up
and train. I run a magic poor world, so that *any* spell is worth 10 times it's
weight. This way I never have a mage saying "I want to research Fire-ball, or
stoneskin", or anyother powerful spell, because in a magic poor world a
Magic-Missle will scare the willies out of any non-magic creature, cuz they
prolly have never seen the likes of it anywhere. So the mage will inspire fear
with first level spells. But they work damn hard to find spells!
-Bruce
Brian S. Wilson
On 22 Jul 1997, A. W. Jackson wrote:
> Two-Weapon Style-plus-Ambidexterity for one of the most unbalancing
> things invented by TSR. If your group uses this travesty of an "option",
> all bets are off. Sorry.
And just what is the problem with two weapon+ambidexterity????? For a
fighter of any class who has trained since a young age I really don't see
a problem with this. There are limitations such as no sheild, limited size
of weapon, and speed considerations. I find it to be rather fair, if
someone is willing to spend the Character points.
-Brian
Bill Mullen
In <Pine.SOL.3.94.970804...@droid.fit.qut.edu.au>
Mikhovitch <n192...@student.fit.qut.edu.au.spamitech> writes:
>> Are you thinking of taking my spell book? Try to take Herman the
>> Archmage's spellbook when you have no arms! Ha! I will take them
off, you
>> little pig-dog, for even bringing up the subject.
>>
>
>Wouldn't it depend allot on the level of the mage involved. Remember
>Midnight from the FR Avatar Trilogy? Hers was taken by halflings,
simply
>because she wasn't powerful enough (or so I assume) to lay any wards
or
>protections... just my opinion tho.
At 3rd level, Mages get access to Magic Mouth. This makes a Mage
pretty much proof from pickpocket attempts.
Peace :)
Bill
maxpot46
Travis Hall
Fergus Gibson (fe...@islandnet.com) wrote:
: Mad Hatter wrote in article <33DADD2A...@cryptont.REMOVETHIS.com>...
:
: >The only rule that gives
: >more power to warriors (which is way overdue, IMO), is the mastery rule
: >which is even balanced by the fact that the warrior can SPECIALIZE in
: >only one weapon, unlike under the PHB, where after 1st level you may
: >specialize in as many as you like.
:
: I don't concur with your interpretation of the PHB. Under Weapon
: Specialisation, the PHB states: "Weapon specialisation ... enables a fighter
: (only) to choose a single weapon and specialise in its use." A fighter is
: only permitted to specialise in the use of a single weapon.
His interpretation is not incorrect in light of the fact that the same
paragraph also says, "... even after a player character earns experience,
he can still choose to specialize in other weapons ..."
The PHB is a bit ambiguous on the subject, but the view that a fighter can
specialize in multiple weapons is certainly not groundless.
Mikhovitch
On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, Herman the Archmage wrote:
> What happens if your fighter is without sword because I melted it into a
> little puddle? What happens if your cleric is without a holy symbol
> because I fed it to a goat?
>
> Ha! Why would I be without spell book? I always have my spell book. If I'm
> not with spell book, that means someone has taken my spellbook, which
> means I still have my spellbook because I would have already killed the
> pig-dog scum for even thinking of such a thing!
>
> Are you thinking of taking my spell book? Try to take Herman the
> Archmage's spellbook when you have no arms! Ha! I will take them off, you
> little pig-dog, for even bringing up the subject.
>
Wouldn't it depend allot on the level of the mage involved. Remember
Midnight from the FR Avatar Trilogy? Hers was taken by halflings, simply
because she wasn't powerful enough (or so I assume) to lay any wards or
protections... just my opinion tho.
O O :: Remove spamitech from my email addy to reply ::
-oooO--(_)---Oooo-------------------------------------------------------
.MiK. Brisbane, Gold & Sunshine Coasts
TIAS (c) 1994,1997 http://www.infinite.com/info/Astral.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.oooO Oooo. Any sufficiently complicated technology
( Y ) ( Y ) is indistinguishable from Magick
--\ (-----) /-----------------------------------------------------------
\_) (_/ (Arthur C. Clarke)
Joshua Kaufman
On 30 Jul 1997 15:42:31 GMT, ebe...@oregon.uoregon.edu (sonny
hays-eberts) wrote:
>hmm, unless the game has changed radically in the last 10 years since i
>played, a 3rd level or higher cleric can demolish an archmage, _in
>theory_. silence 15' r. used to prevent the casting of any spell with
>verbal components - most if not all mage spells under ad&d v.1. toss the
>silence on a rock, (no save) and throw the rock near the mage. if the
>party can keep the mage within 15' of the silenced stone - no spells, no
>command words for staves or wands, and pretty much a dead mage; barring a
>magic item which can be activated soundlessly. in a small room or
>corridor, it wouldn't be that difficult to accomplish such a feat.
That would be true. But there are ways a mage can avoid this. If he
casts vocalize (a spell not requiring verbal components) all the rest
of his spells can be cast, without requiring verbal components.
Having been silenced in the past as a mage, I always try and get the
spell Vocalize, so I have a way to be an effective mage in combat,
despite the silence spell. It is also nice if you want to be quiet
when casting a spell, to increase the element of surprise.
>always thought that particular spell had an absurdly strong side effect.
>was it ever altered to be less devastating when directed at mages? in past
>campaigns, i ruled the spell stops sound at the radius (i.e., those inside
>make noise, it just doesn't pass the barrier, which allows spell casting
>inside).
I don't think the spell needs to be altered. As I said, there are
things a mage can do about it. If you alter the spell too much and
allow mages to cast spells, people will be more hesitant to use the
spell. It has a limited use anyway. It's basic purpose is to mess
with a spellcaster, or someone else who needs verbal speech (I believe
it can screw with a berzerker). The spell probably can be useful
for a thief, although the problem with a thief using it is that
everything around him (15' radius) would become silent, so it becomes
obvious that someone or something is stopping the sound.
KLINT
> At 3rd level, Mages get access to Magic Mouth. This makes a Mage
> pretty much proof from pickpocket attempts.
> Peace :)
>
Well, you'd have to be really careful. The spell only lasts, IIRC,
until it is activated. So if you tell your MM to say, "Stop theif"
whenever someone touches your money pouch, you're in trouble when you
walk into the bar.
If you say, anyone else, and you get brushed up against in a crowd where
you don't want to be known as a mage. Or in the Baron's throne room
when you are frisked.....
barbara haddad
Agreed. Especially since rangers get the skill for free as long as
their wear studded leather armor or less. Ambidexterity is perfectly
fine IMHO. (That is, as long as you don't let the fighters start
slinging around double greatswords :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a thought from barbara haddad -> (bha...@LunaCity.com)
LunaCity BBS - Mountain View, CA - 415 968 8140
barbara haddad
> > Ha! Why would I be without spell book? I always have my spell book. If I'm
> > not with spell book, that means someone has taken my spellbook, which
> > means I still have my spellbook because I would have already killed the
> > pig-dog scum for even thinking of such a thing!
> >
> > Are you thinking of taking my spell book? Try to take Herman the
> > Archmage's spellbook when you have no arms! Ha! I will take them off, you
> > little pig-dog, for even bringing up the subject.
> >
>
> Wouldn't it depend allot on the level of the mage involved. Remember
> Midnight from the FR Avatar Trilogy? Hers was taken by halflings, simply
> because she wasn't powerful enough (or so I assume) to lay any wards or
> protections... just my opinion tho.
Plus there are always cases you cannot plan for. Like blowing your
saving throw against a fireball/lightningbolt/so forth and then having
the spellbook burn up during the 'item saving throw' rolls.
Fergus Gibson
Travis Hall wrote in article <5s3g9v$6o4$1...@nargun.cc.uq.edu.au>...
>Fergus Gibson (fe...@islandnet.com) wrote:
>: I don't concur with your interpretation of the PHB. Under Weapon
>: Specialisation, the PHB states: "Weapon specialisation ... enables a
fighter
>: (only) to choose a single weapon and specialise in its use." A fighter
is
>: only permitted to specialise in the use of a single weapon.
>
>His interpretation is not incorrect in light of the fact that the same
>paragraph also says, "... even after a player character earns experience,
>he can still choose to specialize in other weapons ..."
Apparently you have a different printing of the PHB than I. Mine says:
"Specialisation is normally announced ... when the character is created.
But even after a player character earns experience, he can still choose to
specialise in a weapon..."
I am quoting from the 2nd Edition, 2nd printing. It is very clear that a
fighter may specialise in _a_ weapon -- one weapon -- and _only_ one weapon.
Specialisation would not make sense if it were applied to multiple weapons.
It's exclusive nature is why it is called "specialisation."
Of course, as always, you can do whatever you want in your own campaign.
>The PHB is a bit ambiguous on the subject, but the view that a fighter can
>specialize in multiple weapons is certainly not groundless.
Perhaps ambiguity exists in previous printings, but if so, it has been
corrected.
sonny hays-eberts
In article <33e57eaa...@news.dx.net>, jk...@mpb.com (Joshua Kaufman)
wrote:
> I don't think the spell needs to be altered.
with the addition of the vocalize spell, you're right. however, i played
ad&d before such a spell existed - making it a rather potent mage-killing
device way beyond what it should have been.
> As I said, there are
> things a mage can do about it. If you alter the spell too much and
> allow mages to cast spells, people will be more hesitant to use the
> spell. It has a limited use anyway. It's basic purpose is to mess
> with a spellcaster, or someone else who needs verbal speech (I believe
> it can screw with a berzerker).
it's also very useful for sneak&peak style adventures. casting it while
bashing down a door after sneaking into the cellar unseen, casting it on
the guard with the horn to keep the alarm silent, effectivly blinding
giant bats or any echlocative creature, etc. my players found quite a few
uses for it. not to mention it's a useful way for keeping harpies and
sirens a tad less troublesome. if you think it's of limited use, i think
you haven't considered it creatively enough. it's no offencive monster,
but it's a powerful spell in it's own right! even letting mages cast
spells within it, it was one of those spells clerics always wanted imc.
Fergus Gibson
Peter Verschuren wrote in article <5rpikj$k...@mira.sara.nl>...
>I do not agree a humble low level mage is no match for a fighter. There
>are some nasty spells available to him. At the moment I play a second level
>shadow mage in the company of a 2nd lvl fighter and 3rd level priest.
>Lately we were ambushed by a bunch of orcs (perhaps 20?).
>
>Round 1: fighter kills 1 orc; priest casts sanctuary; mage casts sleep ( 4
>orcs asleep).
[...snip: tale of bodycounts and spells...]
What were the orcs doing during this time? If I were your DM, I think I'd
have three dead players. Let's see. six orcs jump fighter; fighter goes
down in a couple rounds. Six orcs have already jumped the mage. After
perhaps doing some initial damage, the mage is meleed and killed. The
priest would likely fair better, but he's still facing over a dozen orcs...
by himself.
The first time I sat at the end of the DM and looked at a player, he and his
group of four were jumped by 12 kobolds. I learned from that experience.
Against low level characters, quantity kills. If I had fudge one or two die
rolls, they would simply have been swamped and killed by the little buggers.
I don't think it's part of the core rules, but I give a +1 bonus to all
attackers for each attacker after the first. Thus the six orcs would each
be given +5 to the hit rolls for multiple attackers. This is meant to
reflect the difficulty involved in defending yourself from multiple attacks.
Michael J. Tedin
sonny hays-eberts wrote:
>
> In article <01bc9b9c$3954e640$c2c2efcf@default>, "Peng" <pe...@kc.net> wrote:
>
> > Yes, indeed, mages are useless at low levels and need extreme patience to
> > play. However, as said, even mild wizards at 9th level (well, I really
> > don't think that is very mild. My campaigns always seem low level) can
> > destroy a fighter.
>
> played, a 3rd level or higher cleric can demolish an archmage, _in
> theory_. silence 15' r. used to prevent the casting of any spell with
> verbal components - most if not all mage spells under ad&d v.1. toss the
> silence on a rock, (no save) and throw the rock near the mage. if the
> party can keep the mage within 15' of the silenced stone - no spells, no
> command words for staves or wands, and pretty much a dead mage; barring a
> magic item which can be activated soundlessly. in a small room or
> corridor, it wouldn't be that difficult to accomplish such a feat.
>
> was it ever altered to be less devastating when directed at mages? in past
> campaigns, i ruled the spell stops sound at the radius (i.e., those inside
> make noise, it just doesn't pass the barrier, which allows spell casting
> inside).
To me, silencing mages to prevent spell-casting is not a side-effect,
but the main purpose of this spell. Who uses it for other things. This
has always been the most common use of the spell in my games.
Lucky Loser
To me, silencing mages to prevent spell-casting is not a side-effect,
but the main purpose of this spell. Who uses it for other things.
This
has always been the most common use of the spell in my games.
Maybe I am just dumb , but I use this spell for other things such as:
1. The ability to kick down a door , or break a window to sneak into a
place without making a sound
2.What better way for an would be assassin to sneak up on someone?
(sure beats rolling MS)
3.Ever run into a harpy , banshee , siren , ect.? Hmm...kinda a no
brainer isn't it?
There are many other uses for this spell , but I do agree stopping
spell casting is one of the most valuable I often use it when DMing to
stop the high level mage from nuking the lord of Ravenloft with one
Fireball. The problem with using the spell for thieving purposes is
that it requirs verbal components itself. (but a mage or cleric softly
chanting outside of the evil barons home really beats the crash of his
door as the fighter slams his war hammer through it.
--
T L L
h u o
e c s
k e
y r
Wraith
"Fergus Gibson" <fe...@islandnet.com> babbled about Re: Mages on Tue, 5
Aug 1997 00:04:19 -0700, saying:
>
>I don't think it's part of the core rules, but I give a +1 bonus to all
>attackers for each attacker after the first. Thus the six orcs would each
>be given +5 to the hit rolls for multiple attackers. This is meant to
>reflect the difficulty involved in defending yourself from multiple attacks.
>
>
Correct. It is not part of the core rules. I like the idea, but I
think you're taking the bonus a bit overboard (IMHO). I'm thinking
maybe +1 for all creatures per multiple of defenders.
Example: 3 party members vs x Orcs = +y bonus to attack rolls for all
orcs.
If x = 5 or less, y = 0. If x 6 - 8, y = +1. If x=9-11, y = +2.
Dunno...have to do some playtesting...but I think 3 people vs 6 orcs
with a +5 bonus each is just a little much. Any comments anyone? =)
-Wraith
Fergus Gibson
Wraith wrote in article <33ea2628...@news.alpha.net>...
>Dunno...have to do some playtesting...but I think 3 people vs 6 orcs
>with a +5 bonus each is just a little much. Any comments anyone? =)
I'm afraid I must have been unclear. Six orcs against a _single_ PC have a
+5 bonus each. When six orcs are attacking a single player, there is a +1
bonus given to each of those orcs for each attacker after the first.
A seventh orc fighting another PC would receive no bonus since he is the
only attacker on that particular PC.
I hope this makes more sense. I agree it would be excessive to apply a +5
bonus to 2:1 situation. I also think it would be illogical to award a bonus
on the basis of two groups, rather than on a per engagement basis.
Scott Zrubek
Wraith wrote:
>
> "Fergus Gibson" <fe...@islandnet.com> babbled about Re: Mages on Tue, 5
> Aug 1997 00:04:19 -0700, saying:
>
> >
> >I don't think it's part of the core rules, but I give a +1 bonus to all
> >attackers for each attacker after the first. Thus the six orcs would each
> >be given +5 to the hit rolls for multiple attackers. This is meant to
> >reflect the difficulty involved in defending yourself from multiple attacks.
> >
> >
>
> Correct. It is not part of the core rules. I like the idea, but I
> think you're taking the bonus a bit overboard (IMHO). I'm thinking
> maybe +1 for all creatures per multiple of defenders.
> Example: 3 party members vs x Orcs = +y bonus to attack rolls for all
> orcs.
>
> If x = 5 or less, y = 0. If x 6 - 8, y = +1. If x=9-11, y = +2.
>
> with a +5 bonus each is just a little much. Any comments anyone? =)
>
I like the idea myself (might try it out tomorrow night).
6 orcs vs 1 PC : each Orc is +5 to hit
3 Orcs vs 1 PC : each Orc is +2 to hit
3 PCs vs 1 Giant : each PC is +2 to hit
Actually, I may run it where the outnumbered thing (PC or monster) will
have AC increased by the numbers mentioned above. This would allow
range weapons to have an increased chance to hit while not in the melee,
thereby showing the lesser maneuverability afforded by being
outnumbered.
Later,
Scott
--
===================================
Scott Zrubek
http://www.itmm.com/scott/zelazny/
===================================
Mad Hatter
Travis Hall wrote:
> I suppose I could use reduce (reversed enlarge) offensively, but it's a
> pretty pathetic attack spell.
Pathetic? Hardly.
Reduce, when used by a 5th level mage causes your damage to be halved.
9th level mages reduce your damage by 90%, so the best an incredibly
strong fighter with multiple attacks can hope for, after being reduced
by a 9th level mage, is amazingly pathetic (2 or 3 hp tops), usually 1.
Not to mention what a few enlarges do to your friendly warrior's damage
totals.
--
If pro is the opposite of con,
what is the opposite of progress?
Doug Smith
"Fergus Gibson" <fe...@islandnet.com> wrote:
> Joshua Kaufman wrote in article <33dd1a4b...@news.dx.net>...
>>>However even a mid level mage is
>>>more than a match for ANY fighter. Give me a 9th level mage vs a 9th
>>>level fighter and the mage will crush the fighter every time, this is
>>>even more so with the PO books.
>>
>>A 9th level mage should be able to crush a 9th level fighter, yes.
>>Especially with spells like stoneskin, fly, mirror image, etc., the
>>mage just has too much firepower at high levels. (Even if the mage
>>and fighter begin the contest on even terms.)
>I think the mage has some real vulnerabilities to a fighter of the same
>level. Yes, if the fighter stood in the middle of plain at a good distance
>from the mage and said, "I'm here to kill you; do your worst!" there would
>be no contest. On the other hand, if he dropped on top of an unsuspecting
>mage from a ledge or another such hidden position, the mage is dead.
??? If the mage ambushed the fighter, the reverse would be true. Or
a priest or a thief. Any character who is prepared in advance and has
surprise on a unprepared opponent will probably win. OTOH if the
opponent is a mage with spells like stoneskin already up, the mage
will still probably be ok. Teleport away while the sword bounces off
of him, come back in his own time.
>I think any mage of power should have bodyguards of one form or another. If
>a fighter gets close to a mage of similar level, that mage is in serious
>danger of death. It really comes down to who's smarter. Maybe I'm being
>silly, but the one-on-one contest seems more evenly matched than people are
>suggesting.
Setting is the prime determiner of who will win IMO. However in a
arena style combat where they start at range on a plain field, the
mage has the advantage, assuming they start at range, and that the
mage has a good selection of spells. A fighter can easily be
replenished after several combats with healing. A mage starts more
powerful, but degrades quickly. That's one of the trade-offs between
the classes. While stocked with spells however the mage is usually
more powerful than the fighter. All IMO.
DES
Yuri: "Whoops. So much for a live arrest."
Travis Hall
Mad Hatter (abs...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: Travis Hall wrote:
: > I suppose I could use reduce (reversed enlarge) offensively, but it's a
: > pretty pathetic attack spell.
:
: Pathetic? Hardly.
:
: Reduce, when used by a 5th level mage causes your damage to be halved.
: 9th level mages reduce your damage by 90%, so the best an incredibly
: strong fighter with multiple attacks can hope for, after being reduced
: by a 9th level mage, is amazingly pathetic (2 or 3 hp tops), usually 1.
Whoo-whoo. That just means I get beaten up slowly. You're right, reversed
enlarge can be quite powerful (assuming the enemy fails that darned save)
but this sort of thing just isn't terribly useful for my character. He's
much better off just keeping out of the way until the battle's over.
: Not to mention what a few enlarges do to your friendly warrior's damage
: totals.
This is something that might be worth doing occasionally. In fact, this is
the reason a picked that spell in the first place - just to have a token
spell for showing the party how useful I can be. It just hasn't ever been
a terribly desirable use.
Actually, I'm much more inclined to use the reverse spell to reduce large
objects enough for them to be managable by my Obscene Servant. Just
another in a very long list of utility combinations.