From: texdude@camelot.bradley.edu (Philip Allen)
Subject: Re: Why are their level limits?
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: na
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:17:05 GMT

In <66993@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:

>In article <1992Aug26.220054.695@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:

>But the problem is that you can't have penalties that make sense.  There
>would be no game balance at all.

>Why can't wizards wear armor?  They don't know how to put it on.

I always thought they couldn't wear armor because it interfered with
spellcasting.  After all, digging spell components out of your pockets is
near impossible if you had plate mail gauntlets.  And since AD&D doesn't have
decent rules on armor location, they assume if you wear plate mail, you're
wearing the gauntlets too.  
In a campaign I played over the summer, mages could wear any armor they
wanted.  However, we had a spellcasting system with spell failures, and the
heavier your armor, the better chances of spell failure.

>But if wizards could wear plate mail and use
>real weapons, everyone would be a wizard (well, maybe not everyone,
>but you get the idea).

Even if wizards could use swords and bows, they'd still suck at combat.
The differences wouldn't be noticable at low levels (where even fighters
suck), but around 6th or 7th level, the wizard would be next to useless in
HTH combat.    

>Why can only thieves pick locks?  I'm not a thief by profession, but I could
>learn to pick a lock if I really took the time.  Why aren't there lock
>picking/trap finding/trap removing non-weapon proficiencies?  Because
>they don't want everyone able to do those things.  That's what a thief
>does, and if everyone else could do them, no one would choose to be
>a thief.

I use thieves' abilities as a non-weapon proficiency.  However, thieves
advance their abilities every time they go up a level, non-thieves can only
advance when they get a new non-weapon proficiency slot.  Also, what
non-thief is going to take all of the thieves' abilities as non-weapon
proficiencies.  Might as well be a thief if you're going to do that.
So, if you use thieves' abilities as non-weapon proficiencies, fighters and
mages can pick a lock, but nowhere near as well as a thief can.

>Why can only fighters specialize in weapons?  Because since the poor
>bastards can't do anything else spectacular, they have to have
>*something*, or no one would want to be a fighter.

Or maybe it's because while everyone else was diligently studying, the
fighters were out in the back yard beating each other silly.  They just
have had more practice than the other classes.  However, I *do* think other
classes should be able to specialize.  I think it's ridiculous to think a
big ox of a fighter could attack more times per round than an agile thief
with a dagger.  I think the key is limiting the weapons non-fighters can
use.
Let thieves specialize in small weapons, such as dagger and short swords.
It is concievable that in their time in the guild, they picked up some
street fighting...
Let clerics specialize in their deity's chosen weapon, unless they are
priests of peace or healing...
Since most mages wouldn't have time to specialize in a weapon, allow them
to specialize in a combat spells (+1 to hit with all spells requiring a to
hit roll, and enemies save at -1 vs. the mages combat spells) to show that
the mage spent extra time aiming those lightning bolts and fireballs.

These are just rough ideas off the top of my head, so take them with a
grain of salt.

>Why can clerics not use edged weapons?  Because their deities don't want
>them to shed blood?  Hey, have you ever been hit in the face with a mace?
>Besides, the deities don't have any problems with their paladins shedding
>blood.

I agree.  This is a stupid rule that should be done away with.

>Notice that all my examples are class-based instead of race-based.  That's
>because the class restrictions (IMHO) are the most ridiculous of all.
>But hey, we live with them, in the name of game balance....

I agree that TSR did a bad job with restrictions trying to balance the
classes out.  But no said you had to use all of their rules.  If you think
a rule is stupid or it just doesn't make sense, don't use it.  Or change
it.  There are plenty of ways to get rid of some of the class/race
restrictions without unbalancing the game.  


Phil