From: texdude@camelot.bradley.edu (Philip Allen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Why are their level limits?
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:45:58 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Bradley University

In <67022@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>In article <67013@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:

>>I never said anything about casting spells in armor.  Why is everyone putting
>>words in my mouth?

>The assumption is that the wizard is going to want to cast spells.  I suppose
>you can have a wizard clanking around in armor, but he's going to be pretty 
>useless.

That's pretty unimaginative if you think a character can't do anything
without magic.  I can't cast spells, and I can think of lots of things I
can do....

>Actually, I'm considering not permitting wizards to multi-class in future 
>campaigns I run, partially because of the armor issue...if you want to be a 
>wizard, you're going to be a *real* wizard and run around in your bathrobe!

So, don't let multi-class mages wear armor.

>>Why can't a fighter learn to pick a lock without having to go through a 
>>class change?  As for taking the time to learn the craft:  [...]

>Because if you are learning lock-picking, you are *not* learning fighting.
>My view of adventurers in AD&D is that they are so exceptional as compared
>to the common citizen because they spend *all* their time learning their 
>craft.  If you start spending time learning skills that don't pertain to 
>your choses profession, you start falling behind.

So where does the same fighter find the time to learn heraldry or etiquette
or how to speak hobgoblin?  I think that a fighter could use the time he
would normally be learning other languages and other non-weapon
proficiencies, and instead learn lockpicking.  But he'll never be as good
as a thief that spends all of his guild training learning how to pick a
lock.

>Another way of looking at this whole thread is that you are trying to apply
>real-world perspectives to a fantasy role-playing game, and *every time* 
>you are going to come to the conclusion that rules don't make sense.  Indeed, 
>they *don't* make sense; that's why it's called _fantasy_.

So why don't we all play _Toon_?  There's no reality in that.  Role-playing
games with no basis in reality aren't a lot of fun for some people.  There
are actually fantasy games where most of the rules do make sense.  In fact,
D&D has some very reasonable rules.  It just so happens that they threw
reality out of the window in order to balance the classes/races.  That
isn't to say that with a few changes, the classes/races couldn't be both
reasonable and balanced.  

>>After a cleric uses a mace for 10 years, I figure he'd become specialized
>>in it, too:  It would just happen.

>No, because specialization comes from an intensive study of the art of using
>a weapon.  If a cleric gets into intensive study of weapons, he's *not* 
>devoting sufficient time to his priestly duties, and is therefore a bad cleric.

What about clerics of the deities of war and combat.  Not all priests are
expected to pray all day.  Some actually go out and practice fighting.

>Simply using a weapon all the time does *not* make you a specialist.  To 
>use a real-world analogy, a secretary may use a computer five days a week
>48 weeks a year; will she become a computer specialist in ten years?  Nope.
>She won't even become a specialist in the (let's assume) one software 
>package (Microsoft Word) that she uses all that time.  She may become damn 
>good, but as compared to a software engineer at Microsoft, is she a specialist?
>Nope.  

But does that mean that a physicist cannot also become a computer
programmer?  Of course not.  Even though a physicist may spend most of his
life learning physics, he can still study computers long enough to become a
specialist.


>Considering that one of the most important aspects of a game is that it has 
>to be playable, game balance is an infinitely good reason to make a rule.

But does that mean we should just make any old rule up, or should we
instead take some extra time to think of a rule that is both balanced and
logical?


Philip W. Allen      texdude@camelot.bradley.edu         /(?)\